MIT: traditional incandescent light bulbs, reinvented, may make a comeback

From MIT News:

Researchers combine the warm look of traditional light bulbs with 21st-century energy efficiency

Traditional light bulbs, thought to be well on their way to oblivion, may receive a reprieve thanks to a technological breakthrough.

A proof-of-concept device built by MIT researchers demonstrates the principle of a two-stage process to make incandescent bulbs more efficient. This device already achieves efficiency comparable to some compact fluorescent and LED bulbs.
A proof-of-concept device built by MIT researchers demonstrates the principle of a two-stage process to make incandescent bulbs more efficient. This device already achieves efficiency comparable to some compact fluorescent and LED bulbs.

Incandescent lighting and its warm, familiar glow is well over a century old yet survives virtually unchanged in homes around the world. That is changing fast, however, as regulations aimed at improving energy efficiency are phasing out the old bulbs in favor of more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) and newer light-emitting diode bulbs (LEDs).

Incandescent bulbs, commercially developed by Thomas Edison (and still used by cartoonists as the symbol of inventive insight), work by heating a thin tungsten wire to temperatures of around 2,700 degrees Celsius. That hot wire emits what is known as black body radiation, a very broad spectrum of light that provides a warm look and a faithful rendering of all colors in a scene.

But these bulbs have always suffered from one major problem: More than 95 percent of the energy that goes into them is wasted, most of it as heat. That’s why country after country has banned or is phasing out the inefficient technology. Now, researchers at MIT and Purdue University may have found a way to change all that.

The new findings are reported in the journal Nature Nanotechnology by three MIT professors — Marin Soljačić, professor of physics; John Joannopoulos, the Francis Wright Davis Professor of physics; and Gang Chen, the Carl Richard Soderberg Professor in Power Engineering — as well as MIT principal research scientist Ivan Celanovic, postdoc Ognjen Ilic, and Purdue physics professor (and MIT alumnus) Peter Bermel PhD ’07.

Light recycling

The key is to create a two-stage process, the researchers report. The first stage involves a conventional heated metal filament, with all its attendant losses. But instead of allowing the waste heat to dissipate in the form of infrared radiation, secondary structures surrounding the filament capture this radiation and reflect it back to the filament to be re-absorbed and re-emitted as visible light. These structures, a form of photonic crystal, are made of Earth-abundant elements and can be made using conventional material-deposition technology.

That second step makes a dramatic difference in how efficiently the system converts electricity into light. One quantity that characterizes a lighting source is the so-called luminous efficiency, which takes into account the response of the human eye. Whereas the luminous efficiency of conventional incandescent lights is between 2 and 3 percent, that of fluorescents (including CFLs) is between 7 and 15 percent, and that of most compact LEDs between 5 and 15 percent, the new two-stage incandescents could reach efficiencies as high as 40 percent, the team says.

The first proof-of-concept units made by the team do not yet reach that level, achieving about 6.6 percent efficiency. But even that preliminary result matches the efficiency of some of today’s CFLs and LEDs, they point out. And it is already a threefold improvement over the efficiency of today’s incandescents.

The team refers to their approach as “light recycling,” says Ilic, since their material takes in the unwanted, useless wavelengths of energy and converts them into the visible light wavelengths that are desired. “It recycles the energy that would otherwise be wasted,” says Soljačić.

Bulbs and beyond

One key to their success was designing a photonic crystal that works for a very wide range of wavelengths and angles. The photonic crystal itself is made as a stack of thin layers, deposited on a substrate. “When you put together layers, with the right thicknesses and sequence,” Ilic explains, you can get very efficient tuning of how the material interacts with light. In their system, the desired visible wavelengths pass right through the material and on out of the bulb, but the infrared wavelengths get reflected as if from a mirror. They then travel back to the filament, adding more heat that then gets converted to more light. Since only the visible ever gets out, the heat just keeps bouncing back in toward the filament until it finally ends up as visible light.

“The results are quite impressive, demonstrating luminosity and power efficiencies that rival those of conventional sources including fluorescent and LED bulbs,” says Alejandro Rodriguez, assistant professor of electrical engineering at Princeton University, who was not involved in this work. The findings, he says, “provide further evidence that application of novel photonic designs to old problems can lead to potentially new devices. I believe that this work will reinvigorate and set the stage for further studies of incandescence emitters, paving the way for the future design of commercially scalable structures.”

The technology involved has potential for many other applications besides light bulbs, Soljačić says. The same approach could “have dramatic implications” for the performance of energy-conversion schemes such as thermo-photovoltaics. In a thermo-photovoltaic device, heat from an external source (chemical, solar, etc.) makes a material glow, causing it to emit light that is converted into electricity by a photovoltaic absorber.

“LEDs are great things, and people should be buying them,” Soljačić says. “But understanding these basic properties” about the way light, heat, and matter interact and how the light’s energy can be more efficiently harnessed “is very important to a wide variety of things.”

He adds that “the ability to control thermal emissions is very important. That’s the real contribution of this work.” As for exactly which other practical applications are most likely to make use of this basic new technology, he says, “it’s too early to say.”

The work was supported by the Army Research Office through the MIT Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, and the S3TEC Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

244 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 25, 2016 10:46 pm

But these bulbs have always suffered from one major problem: More than 95 percent of the energy that goes into them is wasted, most of it as heat.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. 9 months out of the year, there is no “wasted heat”, because the thermostat is active and the heat comes on. The other 3 months there’s 16+ hours of daylight so I barely have the lights on.
In fact I have a pallet full of 60W and 100W bulbs that I use to supply heat for at least 4 rooms in two homes. I need a pallet of bulbs to so I can delay revamping the electrical and central air as long as possible and because the bulbs are banned…
If you live in an air-conditioned environment, (Say TX or CA) then you have to add the waste of the Carnot Cycle to eliminate the heat from your building envelope via air conditioning. So it’s more like 150% of the heat is wasted…
Really, the choice for bulbs should have been along building code guidelines for regions just like that map shown in the building codes books. Example here:
http://reca-codes.org/images/ieccmap.jpg
In climate zones 4-7 there is little “wasted” heat from incandescent bulbs due to either winter conditions or long summer days where extensive lighting isn’t needed.
Peter

dp
Reply to  Peter Sable
October 25, 2016 11:50 pm

I agree. We replaced all our filament bulbs with LED lamps and now the heat pump runs 24×7 all year.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  dp
October 26, 2016 7:15 am

And your heat pump is 2 times as efficient at heating as the old incandescent bulbs, so you are still ahead.

Peter MacFarlane
Reply to  Peter Sable
October 26, 2016 1:26 am

Totally true in Scotland where I live.
Unfortunately the greenies/world govt. types require one-size-fits-all in everything.

OK S.
Reply to  Peter Sable
October 26, 2016 7:42 am

Peter Sable.
I found a source for your map (perhaps not the right one):
From RECA (PDF): Impacts of Standard 90.1-2007 for Commercial Buildings at State Level
But is seems to address legal requirements, not engineering requirements.
A later paper is about the same.
Frome RECA (PDF): Impacts of the 2009 IECC for Residential Buildings at State Level
Page 8:

2.2 Lighting
The 2009 IECC requires 50% of lamps (bulbs, tubes) within a residence to be energy efficient. There were no requirements for lighting in single-family homes in previous versions of the IECC. This includes but is not limited to CFLs. Standard incandescent bulbs do not qualify. Savings attributable to the lighting requirements in the IECC will decrease as Federal law requires improved light bulbs in 2012 to 2014.

Do you know of any engineering studies to back up these codes (or laws–abysmal in this country when unelected bureaucrats are allowed to make up laws and enforce their own criminal penalties)?

October 25, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: return of incandescent bulbs
Seems to me that about 10 years ago, I could buy incandescent bulbs for about 15 cents each. Now, LED bulbs on sale are $2 each. Has any bothered to compare the energy expenditure making incandescent vs. LED and how long it takes to PAY FOR the mandated light bulbs that, I am sure, are not saving a damn bit to energy in total?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  noylj2014noylj
October 26, 2016 7:29 am

Do the math. A 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9 watts of electricity instead of 60. At a measly 2 hours average use per day, you get a savings of 37,230 watt-hours per year. Even at $.10/kWh, you save $3.70 per year in electricity use. Even the cheap $2 LEDs will last a year, and probably more. The $6 name brand bulbs will last much longer, but even if they only last 10 years, they will save you many times the $6 cost. And I used a low value for the electricity cost – most people pay higher rates.

October 25, 2016 11:47 pm

Energy saving light bulbs were nothing but a MASSIVE SCAM

Griff
October 26, 2016 1:00 am

Perhaps people haven’t noticed the enormous savings large industrial companies get from switching to LEDs?
“Ford, for example, made the big switch to install LED lights in its factories in 2014. More than 25,000 LED light fixtures were installed at Ford factories around the year. With a 15-year life expectancy, LED lighting was perfect for the factories in terms of reduced maintenance and helping cut energy costs by approximately £5M.”
https://www.easilume.co.uk/the-big-switch-to-led-lighting-in-industrial-spaces/

Griff
October 26, 2016 1:03 am

And this is interesting – forecasts total LED roll out in UK could reduce winter peak demand by several GW…
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/switching-led-light-bulbs-will-slash-winter-blackout-risk-20161014
that’s the equivalent of the new Hinkley reactor.
also notes 2 year payback period for the lights…
(yes I know its Greenpeace. Hold your nose and evaluate the data)

Peter MacFarlane
Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 1:28 am

Yes it will reduce peakload electricity by that sort of amount indeed. Because the extra heating needed to make up will come from some other fuel.

Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 1:54 am

Energy use is not an issue, we can generate enough (if you don’t listen to the CAGW doomsters). Cost. Total led roll out for the UK? One bridge in Canada switching to LED from fluorescent bulbs will cost $700.000
Making LEDS also costs more, and requires more energy and resources, need electronics.

Griff
Reply to  mark - Helsinki
October 26, 2016 7:27 am

Yes, but point is, if you are a large company (like Ford) putting in LEDs saves $thousands on electricity not used, plus the LED lights need replacing far less often (less maintenance activity,

Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 1:57 am

The cost of maintaining actual 180 to 270 degree light direction LEDS is also far more expensive, and more time consuming. Those leds that give a 90 degree or less light direction are not useful for lighting.

Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 1:59 am

Multi led units, one led goes, you cant replace it without replacing the whole unit, whereas one just changes a light bulb.

Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 2:14 am

When talking 270 degree light direction from LEDs the power consumption goes up, so that is not really clarified. It’s important. I use LEDs extensively for Reef aquariums, there is much information missing from that Greenpeace press release

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 7:40 am

I hate to agree with Griff here, but in this case he is more or less correct. I didn’t read the greenpeas puff piece, however LEDs do make sense from as cost as well as energy use perspective. They are so much more efficient than incandescent bulbs that even the higher manufacturing costs (both economic and energy input) are more than justified. Yes they are much more directional than incandescent bulbs, but that is not a difficult problem to solve. In most cases a cheap diffuser will suffice, and newer meta-materials to manipulate light are being discovered all the time. I think the few lingering lighting applications where LEDs are not suitable will be soon be overcome.

hunter
October 26, 2016 4:13 am

This sounds like a mini greenhouse. What keeps it from running away and melting down?

Gary Hladik
Reply to  hunter
October 26, 2016 5:51 pm

The same thing that keeps your face from melting when you look in a mirror:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/friday-funny-reflections-on-the-greenhouse-effect/

Jim A
October 26, 2016 4:48 am

I’m sorry to have to say this but there is more BS on this thread than I’ve seen in a long time on here.
Starting with the piece itself. They understate CONTEMPORARY LED lighting efficiency a lot.
The current metric is in Lumens (visible spectrum) per Watt. Their metric is certainly vague.
First…All electric current brought into a building ends as heat. Why Electric heat is always ‘100% Efficient’ but at ‘n’ cost. Issue is how much of it was in the visible spectrum -light- in the intermediate stage.
The question is the cost of that heat for the purpose. What about the Air Conditioner that has to remove that heat. And Gas heat at 80% efficient is STILL much cheaper than electric at 100%. Do the math
-Eve… about 30 years ago, long life bulbs were the rage for a while, mfrs labeled them truthfully and I had a few that read 130v on the label. Stick those on a 110 volt circuit, which many areas have and they WILL produce a little light and a lot of heat for a long time.
I work part time in house renovation, including my own. Have installed over 200 LED bulbs and fixtures in last 3 years, including my own houses. In that time, four have failed: all same type and mfr. GE BR 30. I dont think anyone sells those anymore.
I have over 40 of the pretty much generic A19 non-dim 60w equivalents installed starting 18 months ago. They are are on-sale for under $2 per pretty much all the time. They put out the same lite same color as the standards they replace, I would defy anyone to point out a difference between it and a frosted soft-white.. and over the same area. None failed out of the box, not even the ones accidentally dropped more than four feet. Once onto concrete.
If you have 6″ can lights in your ceiling, with R30 bulbs, buy one BR30 LED. Stand under it with the old light, then turn off and after it cools a little, remove and replace with LED. Feel the inside of the can first.
Now standing under the LED what do you feel? Turn off remove bulb, touch inside of can.
If that doesnt convince you, you are in full Troglodyte Denial.
That said, I do hope the effort described is scalable and successful. LED and CFL because of the circuitry is susceptible to EMP attack,. Intentionally or natural.. But it will probably never be as efficient or inexpensive as LED at that time. They keep getting better too

OK S.
Reply to  Jim A
October 26, 2016 8:13 am

The purpose of artifical lighting is none of the things you list. Single (or limited) spectrum lighting has it purposes. But the purpose of home (and commercial) lighting is for human beings, and the farther you get from full spectrum sunlight, the more it affects human health.
This is only one effect. There are others. From Harvard Medical School:
Blue light has a dark side

But not all colors of light have the same effect. Blue wavelengths—which are beneficial during daylight hours because they boost attention, reaction times, and mood—seem to be the most disruptive at night.

And we could talk about the loss of night vision and driving under bright white lights.

dmacleo
October 26, 2016 5:20 am

here in Maine in winter it wasn’t just the warm glow (honestly I never saw much light difference in newer cfl if right “shade” was bought) but the warmth itself that was useful. you’d be surprised how much it helps.
I used to use cfl in summer and incandescent in winter but now I can’t unless I use high wattage (100 watt rough surface for example) stuff.
still use higher wattage rough surface in drop lights as can easily be used on oil tank filter housing for heat if I make error in mix ratio.
cfl throw a little heat if on for long time but not as much as incandescent.
will prob just migrate everything to led soon anyway.

Gamecock
October 26, 2016 5:22 am

‘More than 95 percent of the energy that goes into them is wasted, most of it as heat. That’s why country after country has banned or is phasing out the inefficient technology.’
It’s none of the governments’ business what a light bulb’s efficiency is. Country after country are existentially flawed.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Gamecock
October 26, 2016 4:12 pm

Jim A (above) has it dead to rights: All the power input to any lighting device will ultimately be reduced to heat, either through the inefficiency of the conversion process from electricity to photons—or to the fact that every photon will ultimately be absorbed by the surfaces of the indoor environment, and become heat.
Lumens/watt is a much better metric than efficiency. I look at the availability of more efficient incandescent lights (halogens) as an opportunity to uprate my fixtures, where it seems possible. If they can ever make a 60-watt-equivalent bulb work at 40 actual watts, guess what I am putting into my 40-watt fixtures.

bit chilly
October 26, 2016 5:26 am

comeback ? they never left this household .

Dave Ward
October 26, 2016 5:32 am

One aspect nobody has mentioned is “Power Factor”. A resistive load (such as an incandescent lamp) will draw the same power from a DC supply as from an AC one. Not so with inductive & capacitive loads on AC. Traditional tubular fluorescent fittings usually have correction built in, giving a PF of 0.8 or better. However few of the CFL’s and LED’s that I’ve tested are that good. Most seem to be around 0.5PF, meaning a 6 Watt lamp is actually using 12 watts. That may not matter (to the consumer) who has an old rotary electric meter, but “Smart” meters can record reactive power, and you might find the savings are not as much as you expect. And it’s not always the “cheap” brands – I found an Osram was the worst, yet one unbranded Chinese CFL was reading 0.95PF! Also, cheap capacitive power supplies don’t like the output from “Modified Sinewave” inverters – the readily available ones which many prudent people are getting to cover for power outages. I tried running our gas central heating (just the boiler and circulating pump) from a small inverter, but in just 5 minutes the programmer was ruined by heating of some PCB components. Exactly the same thing could occur with many low energy lamps…

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Dave Ward
October 26, 2016 8:04 am

Dave,
Currently there are no electric companies that charge residential customers based on reactive power use. And even if they did, the difference would be quite small, less than a penny per kWh. Because of the huge energy efficiency difference between incandescent bulbs and LEDs, the LED bulb is still a win, even if the PF is low. And you can bet that if PF becomes an issue, the manufacturers will start designing for higher PFs if they don’t already, as a way to differentiate themselves from the competition.

TA
October 26, 2016 5:46 am

Everything you wanted to know about lightbulbs.
I love this website! *Any* subject has a set of experts who weigh in and give us the latest information. It doesn’t get much better than that for those seeking to learn something new.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  TA
October 26, 2016 6:44 am

It’s been interesting, although there has been perhaps more heat than light on the subject.

Frederik Michiels
October 26, 2016 8:42 am

what i notice with LED lights is that the light intensity weakens noticeable after 2-3 years depending on the type of LEDs used…

Owen in GA
October 26, 2016 8:48 am

So if I can coat the skin of a tank or plane with this crystalline reflector, I can make an object invisible to infrared targeting systems. I think I may know why the DoD was interested.

Michael 2
Reply to  Owen in GA
October 26, 2016 9:00 am

“So if I can coat the skin of a tank or plane…”
Done: [https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-absorbent_material

Jim
October 26, 2016 10:05 am

The thing we miss is appliance light bulbs… oven lights fail very fast as Chinese “appliance” incandescent bulbs aren’t really tested for 400 F (204 C) so if you are lucky… one or two days. Do you really think the LED light works well in the refrigerator either?

MarkW
Reply to  Jim
October 27, 2016 9:52 am

Why wouldn’t an LED light work in the refrigerator?
They work outdoors in northern states, and those get a lot colder.

Michael 2
October 26, 2016 10:12 am

Spectrum of LED illumination (about 2/3 the way down this page)
[http]://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/lightsources/lightsourcefundamentals.html
http://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/lightsources/images/lightsourcesfigure6.jpg

October 26, 2016 10:23 am
Reply to  Adrian Ashfield
October 26, 2016 10:28 am

Mercola is a notorious quack.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Adrian Ashfield
October 26, 2016 10:45 am

That article makes a lot of claims which are pure speculation. It uses the terms “healthy” and “unhealthy” as if there are objective, scientific meanings for them. There isn’t. There is a lot of talk about how cells absorb certain frequencies of light and how that effects them, etc., but it does not cite any research to back up those claims. Just another one of those “oh my god, our modern society is killing us” articles.

Kelvin Vaughan
October 26, 2016 10:44 am

It’s a back radiation bulb.

Bryan
October 26, 2016 11:29 am

I said upthread
“It indicates that the unwanted low frequency radiation is REFLECTED back to the source.
The greenhouse effect is absorption and re-emission which is a totally different kind of physics.”
Michael says……… 2 October 26, 2016 at 10:17 am
“But same result. How exactly were you going to tell me whether a photon was emitted or reflected?”
If you do not know that absorption and re-emission is quite different from reflection then you will need to take an elementary physics course.
Briefly….
The absorbtion spectrum of a radiation by a medium and its emission spectra can be quite different.
In fact this is one of the principle ideas behind the greenhouse theory
The atmosphere allows practically unhindered solar radiation(6000K) through to Earth surface which then re-emits with a spectrum characteristic of Earth surface temperature (300K)
The Earths emission spectra is mainly infra red which cannot pass through the atmosphere without a significant fraction being absorbed.

Michael 2
Reply to  Bryan
October 26, 2016 11:54 am

I asked: “How exactly were you going to tell me whether a photon was emitted or reflected?”
Bryan’s non-reply: “If you do not know that absorption and re-emission is quite different from reflection then you will need to take an elementary physics course.”
Try again. You observe a photon. How do you know whether it was reflected or emitted; and what difference does it make to whatever receives that photon and converts it to mechanical energy (heat)?
I believe you cannot know, for the photon itself does not know. Consequently, it doesn’t really matter whether the photon was emitted by something or reflected from something.

Bryan
Reply to  Michael 2
October 26, 2016 12:24 pm

Michael 2
Try this at home
If you hold a perfectly mirror pointed at the Sun its radiation will be reflected without affecting the temperature of the mirror
If the mirror is replaced by a similar sized absorbing surface the surface will heat up increasing its temperature.
Now get an elementary physics book and study it thoughly.

Reply to  Michael 2
October 26, 2016 1:11 pm

True. Photons of a given wavelength and polarization are fungible.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Bryan
October 26, 2016 4:20 pm

Bryan, they are not “absorbed.” They are absorbed and RE-EMITTED. There is no net heat sink provided by the atmosphere; there is only scattering of IR photons. Because they are scattered evenly in all directions, half will migrate out of the atmosphere and half will intercept the surface of the Earth. From an optical standpoint, the same effect can be achieved by a partially-reflective mirror.

Bryan
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 27, 2016 1:32 am

Michael J. Dunn what are you writing about?
The article talks about reflection!
Michael 2 thinks this is the same as absorption and emission.
If you agree with Michael 2 then you obviously need to read the same elementary physics books.

Michael 2
Reply to  Bryan
October 27, 2016 9:11 am

Bryan writes “If you agree with Michael 2 then you obviously need to read the same elementary physics books.”
Perhaps instead of merely complaining you could suggest a few from your library; even cite the page where the book explains how to tell whether a particular photon was emitted or reflected and what difference that might make on the object that eventually absorbs the photon.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 28, 2016 3:38 pm

Okay, Bryan, let’s take it by the numbers.
In your post at Oct. 26, 11:29 AM, you insist “The Earths emission spectra is mainly infra red which cannot pass through the atmosphere without a significant fraction being absorbed.” That is the point on which I was correcting you (they are also re-emitted).
In passing, I commented the fact that the absorption/re-emission process–from the standpoint of radiative balance–can be achieved by a partially-reflective mirror (some radiation comes back, and the rest gets through). There is nothing controversial about this comparison. From other standpoints, there can be significant differences. For example, reflection tends to favor wave polarizations in the direction of the reflective surface. When mirrors lose their specularity (as by pitting or corrosion), they become diffuse reflectors and thus come closer to Michael 2’s analogy.
Back to the main topic, there is a valid comparison to be made between the way in which this technology selects the outbound spectrum of the lamp, resulting in effective insulation of the filament, and how the greenhouse effect achieves a similar atmospheric spectral filter for the Earth. The radiation balance analysis is similar, even though the specific physics might be different…in ways that do not affect the analysis.
In my speckled career, I have been an optical engineer, so please accept that I know what I am talking about. Have you read your Haliday and Resnick lately?

littlepeaks
October 26, 2016 1:23 pm

Thinking way outside the box — what if they have huge remote light generating stations, and provide light to homes, business, streetlights, etc, through Lucite cables or fiber-optic cables? (Goin’ nuts in my old age).

Michael 2
October 26, 2016 1:24 pm

Something missing from all comments so far until this very moment…
Efficiency is paramount when your house is “off grid”. Do you want your light bulb to consume 100 watts or 13 watts (for an equivalent light)? That would seem obvious. I have tried many LED’s, in household lighting but also flashlights. Of the dozens of flashlights, two have good color rendition and are very well made (and thus rather expensive); Inova T4R (my favorite) and a SureFire. The T4R is rechargeable and brighter than the headlights on my Toyota Corolla.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Michael 2
October 26, 2016 3:09 pm

The T4R looks like a good flashlight. It uses the Cree XP-G emitter, which is an excellent module, and along with the rechargeable lithium battery, explains the high price. I didn’t see any IP ratings, but the body looks well made.

October 26, 2016 4:25 pm

I am surprised that the “back radiation can’t make the source warmer” contingent hasn’t shown up. What is the difference between this design enhancement to the incandescent light bulb and the greenhouse effect in the earth’s atmosphere? If it works for a light bulb, it works for a planet.

Michael 2
Reply to  Robert Austin
October 26, 2016 8:16 pm

Robert Austin writes “I am surprised that the back radiation can’t make the source warmer contingent hasn’t shown up.”
He’s here. Not exactly a contingent.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Robert Austin
October 27, 2016 6:01 am

Sigh. We are talking about the energy efficiency of the bulb, so terms like “hotter” or “colder” don’t really matter. The simple fact is that if some of the energy is reflected back into the element, that reduces the amount of (electrical) energy that must be supplied to produce a given amount of visible light. Conservation of energy can’t be violated. While this is true for atmospheric physics as well, the two can’t really be compared. The global climate is many orders of magnitude more complicated. Keep you eyes on the ball people.

Michael J. Dunn
October 26, 2016 4:28 pm

I had to read everything to be able to mention this point without being redundant. There is a technology called a sulfur lamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp) that produces “incandescent” light through molecular emission, such that 73% of the emitted radiation is in the visible spectrum, peaking at 510 nm (greenish hue, 6000K color temp, CRI = 79) with luminous efficiency at 100 lumens/watt. I have no idea how practical this technology is, but it seems open to further improvement, and what’s not to like about microwave-induced plasmas? I will turn this over to the sage denizens of WUWT…

Michael 2
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 26, 2016 8:14 pm

“and what’s not to like about microwave-induced plasmas?”
Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) wiping out your home WiFi.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Michael 2
October 28, 2016 3:22 pm

I have WiFi in my home and my microwave oven doesn’t do a darn thing to upset it. Probably because the microwaves are trapped inside the oven by a Faraday shield (the grid across the door window, for example).
They have this system throughout the Smithsonian Museum and there is no problem.

Michael 2
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 29, 2016 8:11 am

“The magnetrons in these lamps may cause electromagnetic interference in the 2.4 GHz wireless spectrum, which is used by Wi-Fi, cordless phones and satellite radio in North America. Fearing interference with their broadcasts, Sirius and XM satellite radio petitioned the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to force Fusion Lighting to reduce the electromagnetic emissions of their lamps by 99.9%. In 2001, Fusion Lighting agreed to install metal shielding around their lamps to reduce electromagnetic emissions by 95%.”
[https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Michael 2
November 3, 2016 12:42 pm

See: problem solved. Sounds like a Faraday shield. Life goes on.

jmorpuss
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 27, 2016 2:06 pm

Here’s some microwave induced plasma .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7lfzA7WzVI
And now using grapes to generate plasma in a microwave. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTjsRt0Fzo
And mod if you add this to that post your holding back about those 1994 test on the Jetstream, well you get the picture.

jmorpuss
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 29, 2016 9:41 pm

Michael J. Dunn
A good way of testing if your microwave is not leaking, is to put your mobile phone inside the microwave oven ,close the door and ring it ,if it rings, your microwave is not safe to use.

RoHa
October 26, 2016 4:37 pm

Warren de la Rue. Joseph Swan.

Verified by MonsterInsights