A new kind of energy-efficient light bulb may provide an alternative to existing compact fluorescent (CFL) and Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs. The new bulbs, made by Seattle-based Vu1, use a technology called electron stimulated luminescence (ESL) to produce incandescent-quality light.
The ESL bulbs generate light by firing electrons to stimulate phosphor, and the whole setup is encased in normal light-bulb glass. The bulbs are estimated to last up to 6,000 hours, which is comparable to CFLs, and three to four times as long as incandescent bulbs.
Unlike CFLs, they do not contain mercury, which is a potent neurotoxin, and can be disposed of as regular trash. Burned-out CFLs need to be disposed of with hazardous waste or returned for recycling.
LEDs are still the most efficient bulbs, lasting 40,000 to 50,000 hours per bulb, but they are a lot more expensive. For example, Panasonic's new Everleds LED light is likely to retail for around $40 per bulb, or twice as much as the expected cost of the new ESL bulbs.
According to Vu1, another advantage of the ESL bulbs is that, unlike CFL and LED bulbs, they produce light that is nearly identical to incandescents, as seen in the infomercial below. The company also says that the new bulbs have a smaller carbon footprint over their lifecycle than CFL or LED bulbs.
The company plans to begin production by the end of the year, and hopes to market the bulbs by the middle of next year.
Nice idea, keep em coming. Ditch the Mercury CFLs, great idea.
Gotta vent a bit though
FUZZY math alert! LED bulbs cost twice the price yes, but last 8 times as long. Which is really a better bargain!
That 40,000 hour number for the LED is also worthy of pause. That means that if used for 5.5 hours a day, the Panasonic Everled lightbulb would last over 19 years, or, over four an a half years if allowed to run all day, every day like my neighbors porch lights. Not bad performance for an admittedly expensive $40 price tag to replace a 60watt bulb. Also of note, the LEDs draw about 6.9watt as well. They claim high efficiency here but there is no mention of the Vu1 watt usage test result?
Put the ESL next to your pictures and vanity mirror to see the colors best but put LEDs everywhere else.
I agree, JimmyD- this technology will have to come down a lot in price before it's attractive enough to lure the masses.
LEDs may be the way to go, but they need to standardize the ratings.
As an experiment, I bought one made by a reputable manufacturer -- not Panasonic. It was $5 per lamp vs $1.50 for 4 incandescents -- I thought it was spendy.
It produced the rated illumination in a spot vs an area.
The area illumination was miserable.
It also went bust after a couple of days. I disassembled it and found that they had mutiple LEDs in series to attain the 110v. They also had a rudimentary rectifier.
Junk like this will kill the LED revolution
Pure Spectrum has now patented a CFL build that is fully dimmable(no flicker or dying out), instant on, cold to the touch, highest power factor(.96), and the energy usage is proportional to the dimming level, the light output is that of an incandescent and the price will be in the $4-$6 range. This is the answer to the NEW CFL!
The have numerous patents and are manufacturing and filling orders now worldwide. Utility companies are buying them up in the droves for their free distribution program. The utility companies love them because it costs them less to deliver the power to these bulbs due to the extremely High Power Factor. ...which means the utility companies charge you less!
The also have a dimmable ballast for linear fluorescents(yes, you will be able to dim fluorescents), also at a fraction of the cost of normal ballast due to the fewer parts that they use in the ballast. This will be huge, imagine a high rise office building in which the fluorescent lights dim with the amount of sunlight coming in,....daylight harvesting at a fraction of the cost...HUGE SAVINGS.
Hopefully the bulbs will be on Home Depot and Wal Mart shelves soon.
So, these are basically simplified old TVs?
I'm hoping than in less than 15 years light bulbs would be obsolete and replaced by an affordable OLED type (or better) technology where the walls and surfaces light up on demand and in whatever color you want. Not only would these surfaces produce light but also any image or video. These ESL light bulbs are good for in between then and now but I would still like to know the power ratings.
Exactly, how i feel. We need someway to harness all the energy working class trailer people in America spend fucking each other, and put it in the grid. If we don't have our best and brightest working on fuck generators, we will all be seeing more black outs than what we already see from leaving our laptops running long after we've splooged on the keyboard and passed out.
aloe65, I did a lot of research on PureSpectrum and wasn't too impressed, and there is a lot of misinformation floating around about the company. For one thing, their bulbs are not fully dimmable. According to the company, they are dimmable down to 10%, which is about average for dimmable CFLs. I've watched 3 different videos of their bulbs being dimmed and each time they cut the camera before it fully dims, but it seems they'd have you believe otherwise.
PureSpectrum bulbs also have the same problems as other CFLs--mercury and are not wastecan disaposable; they're temperature sensitive; they emit UV rays; and, like other CFLs, the life span is greatly affected by the number of times the bulb is turned on and off, or if it's turned off before burning 15 minutes. These Vu1 bulbs appear to eliminate all of those problems that CFLs have.
And frankly, utility companies are not buying them in droves. There has been nothing proffered that shows that the company has sold any bulbs. In fact, according to management their first shipment hasn't even come in yet. Their CEO says it should arrive either this month or in Oct. They don't own their own manufacturing facility so they're paying a manufacturer in China to produce their bulbs.
In addition, the ballasts you mention aren't even completed yet. They are still just prototypes in the developmental stage, according to the S-4 they filed Aug 3, 2009 w/the SEC. They are also in dire need of some financing because, again according to their S-4 they will soon be out of money and they don't have financing lined up. It's an upstart pink sheeter and you always have to be very careful in seeking out the facts. Hope this was helpful.
So what is the power usage versus lumens output? If these really have any advantages in that regard, there is one industry that will use them immediately -- the indoor growing of marijuana. Current incandescent bulbs used for the purpose have two major problems. They use a lot of power, and they produce a lot of heat. If they have solved those problems and can produce light equivalent to a 1,000 watt grow bulb then there is a ready-made market for them right now.
W97, you bring up a good question, one I came across several months ago on a High Times blog while researching Vu1. I don't know the answer, though it sounds to me like a good fit. You might want to contact the company and send them an email or give them a call, though there's a good chance they won't publicly comment on the prospect of using their bulbs as grow lights for marijuana, but privately I would imagine they'd be interested. After all, business is business.
People used to worry about sitting in front of a cathode ray tube and getting too much radiation. Same concept.
Are these being made in the Chech Republic because of less stringent standards in the workplace for chemical safety due to the nature of the products being produced??
It appears to me that the researchers have actually marked a change that will benefit us all. The old globe, in my opinion was far more attractive and did not require the volume, that current led and CFL require to light the desired area. This will be interesting competition.Home Lighting
is needing some overhaul as the current available lighting is less than ideal.
Very interesting times for energy and lighting. I am not certain we have seen the best solution to the ever increasing demand and feaverish use. This is a combination and a very good concept as the number of lights required will reduce, therefore production will be les