robgraham wrote:
On 5 Feb, 16:57, Mike Dodd wrote:
mark wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.
http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb
mark
Work in progress. Most of that page describes bullet-point "patent"
design ideals.

No-where does it describe the new technology to replace filament /
discharge lighting with equivalent optical output with energy saving.

Currently set up as a prototype there's a significant amount of
integration to be performed before it could become remotely viable, and
even then without the new technology to provide effective lighting
levels, it's a dead-duck.

A brave investment opportunity, to be sure. In the mean-time, I'll
continue stock-piling GU10s.

I think if you read the website properly, you will see that the
target market is not the average home but those where there is
someone at risk as the light is integrated with a thermal sensor to
detect non-movement of an IR producing body. As such therefore the
market is one in which the purchaser of the 'lamp', typically a local
authority, will be able to move the lamp from house to house where
there is someone at risk. In that context the £20 is not
unreasonable.

I'm not related in anyway to the original 'spamming' mail but do get
irritated by posters who do not read posts carefully, and take in what
is actually being said

Rob

Ok, for what it's worth, I did read the whole of the first page, and the
link on the page to the prototype.

I'll rise to the post. The vast majority of recent posts talking about
new lighting technology, as referred to by the OP is related to lighting
efficiency.

The site suggests that the bulb will be a replacement for standard bulbs
("retrofit"), and so the implication is that it is an equivalent to a
standard bulb. Create a viable low-energy bulb, however, and there's a
significant market.

The is still the very real problem that the "inventor" has yet to
integrate a thermal imaging device, together with LED technology that
will generate significant heat on the same substrate, integrate this
with a microprocessor (why not an ASIC?), develop the software, test and
get to market, for what is a very limited market. Draw in the
development costs of all that, and the true market and life of the item,
and tell me that it's commercially viable at £20 a pop?

It's a idea. That idea has been patented (well, patent applied for), but
it is far, far from being realised as a product.

Reply if you must, but I shall not.