The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:47:23 PM UTC-6, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Url won't work with ad-blocker.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:54:14 -0600, bob_villain
wrote:

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:47:23 PM UTC-6, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Url won't work with ad-blocker.

Does this work better?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie.../Return-of-inc
andescent-light-bulbs-as-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Dean Hoffman" wrote:

Does this work better?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie.../Return-of-inc
andescent-light-bulbs-as-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html

Nope. You should put long URLs inside angle brackets to keep them from breaking:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12093545/Return-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-as-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-6, bob_villain wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:47:23 PM UTC-6, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

--
Url won't work with ad-blocker.

I use the Chrome browser with all sorts of ad blocking and the page came right up with no problem. (€¢€¿€¢)

[8~{} Uncle Smug Monster

Uncle Monster wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:54:18 PM UTC-6, bob_villain wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:47:23 PM UTC-6, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

--
Url won't work with ad-blocker.

I use the Chrome browser with all sorts of ad blocking and the page came right up with no problem. (€¢€¿€¢)

[8~{} Uncle Smug Monster

Some one does not know how to use adb?

On 01/11/2016 10:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)


We need to ban those energy-hog CFLs and LEDs.

On 1/11/2016 8:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

(sigh) Typical "fluff" story -- media just "retweeting" press releases.
Why can't "they" actually investigate things instead of just repeating
what someone else (who obviously has a bias/interest) has told them?

E.g., what are the issues standing between "it" and "production"?
What are the *likely* costs going to be if it was sold in HUGE
volumes, *today*? Of those, which can be improved upon with techological
advances and which are "hard limits"?

I.e., how much of a pipe dream *is* this?

On 1/11/2016 10:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)


No problem with url.

Surprising how inefficient even new lighting sources, CFL and LED, both are.

Lots of room for improvement.

On 1/12/2016 6:24 AM, Frank wrote:
Surprising how inefficient even new lighting sources, CFL and LED, both are.

Lots of room for improvement.

When I originally set out to add some "heat" to the citrus trees,
I naturally thought of using large "power resistors" (being an EE).
But, power resistors cost a lot of money (in the kilowatt size).

OTOH, 1000W of "light" at 95% INefficiency does the trick on the cheap!

[they are also handy as cheap "power supplies" -- for certain types
of electrical loads]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 8:19:04 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 1/11/2016 8:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

(sigh) Typical "fluff" story -- media just "retweeting" press releases.
Why can't "they" actually investigate things instead of just repeating
what someone else (who obviously has a bias/interest) has told them?


Because it's a newspaper and not a technical journal?


E.g., what are the issues standing between "it" and "production"?
What are the *likely* costs going to be if it was sold in HUGE
volumes, *today*? Of those, which can be improved upon with techological
advances and which are "hard limits"?


You expect a reporter for the Telegraph to do that analysis? The
researchers at MIT probably don't even know enough yet to make that
evaluation. Did researchers accurately predict that you'd have a 60" LCD
TV hanging on your wall for $1000 when LCD technology was first
discovered? Was the reporter writing the first article in a general
interest newspaper supposed to?



I.e., how much of a pipe dream *is* this?

You expect a reporter for the Telegraph to make that judgement?

On 1/12/2016 8:39 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 1/12/2016 6:24 AM, Frank wrote:
Surprising how inefficient even new lighting sources, CFL and LED,
both are.

Lots of room for improvement.

When I originally set out to add some "heat" to the citrus trees,
I naturally thought of using large "power resistors" (being an EE).
But, power resistors cost a lot of money (in the kilowatt size).

OTOH, 1000W of "light" at 95% INefficiency does the trick on the cheap!

[they are also handy as cheap "power supplies" -- for certain types
of electrical loads]

I did the same years ago for an unheated storage space with pipes in the
ceiling.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:47:12 -0600, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote:


The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

"Previously researchers have warned that the blue light emitted by
modern bulbs could be stopping people from getting to sleep at night
and campaigners have expressed concerns about the dangerous chemicals
they contain. "

So turn off the light!

(bad pun intended)

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 10:54:18 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:47:23 PM UTC-6, Dean Hoffman wrote:
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Url won't work with ad-blocker.

I worked in a locked down, corporate environment with all sorts of
ad blockers, prohibited domains, etc. Most image hosting sites, all
webmail sites, tinyurl, etc. are blocked.

Both of the OP's url's (the preview and the direct link) went right
through without an issue.

Must be something on your end, not the OP's (or ours).

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 8:27:59 AM UTC-6, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Must be something on your end, not the OP's (or ours).

....not a concern...ABP on Chrome. (and Telegraph's greed)

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 05:51:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

(sigh) Typical "fluff" story -- media just "retweeting" press releases.
Why can't "they" actually investigate things instead of just repeating
what someone else (who obviously has a bias/interest) has told them?


Because it's a newspaper and not a technical journal?

Maybe he missed the article was a report of an experimental
"proof-of-concept"?

Dean Hoffman used his keyboard to write :
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

I just changed all My bulbs to LEDs last week. :/

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:47:12 -0600, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote:


The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)


Ever since the EU restricted sales of traditional incandescent light
bulbs, homeowners have complained about the shortcomings of their
energy-efficient replacements.
The clinical white beam of LEDs and frustrating time-delay of ‘green’
lighting has left many hankering after the instant, bright warm glow
of traditional filament bulbs.
But now scientists in the US believe they have come up with a solution
which could see a reprieve for incandescent bulbs.
"The lighting potential of this technology is exciting."
Prof Gang Chen, MIT
Researchers at MIT have shown that by surrounding the filament with a
special crystal structure in the glass they can bounce back the energy
which is usually lost in heat, while still allowing the light through.
They refer to the technique as ‘recycling light’ because the energy
which would usually escape into the air is redirected back to the
filament where it can create new light.
"It recycles the energy that would otherwise be wasted," said
Professor Marin Soljacic.
Your Business: Bright ideas from entrepreneurs
An energy efficient light bulb
Usually traditional light bulbs are only about five per cent
efficient, with 95 per cent of the energy being lost to the
atmosphere. In comparison LED or florescent bulbs manage around 14 per
cent efficiency. But the scientists believe that the new bulb could
reach efficiency levels of 40 per cent.
And it shows colours far more naturally than modern energy-efficient
bulbs. Traditional incandescent bulbs have a ‘colour rendering index’
rating of 100, because they match the hue of objects seen in natural
daylight. However even ‘warm’ finish LED or florescent bulbs can only
manage an index rating of 80 and most are far less.
"This experimental device is a proof-of-concept, at the low end of
performance that could be ultimately achieved by this approach," said
principal research scientist Ivan Celanovic.
"An important feature is that our demonstrated device achieves
near-ideal rendering of colours.
“That is precisely the reason why incandescent lights remained
dominant for so long: their warm light has remained preferable to drab
fluorescent lighting for decades.”
Thomas Edison patented the first commercially viable incandescent
light bulb more than 130 years ago so that "none but the extravagant"
would ever "burn tallow candles.”
It works 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 colours in a scene.
Bulb
The first prototype Credit: MIT
However most of the energy is wasted as heat which is why many
countries have now phased out the inefficient technology. The UK
government announced in 2007 that incandescent bulbs would be phased
out by 2011 however many manufacturers still sell them, using a
loophole which says they can be put in industrial buildings.
The Energy Saving Trust calculates that typical living room usage of a
60-watt incandescent lightbulb over a year would cost £7.64. Using an
equivalent energy efficient fluorescent or ‘CFL’ lightbulb would cost
£1.53 per year, while an LED would cost just £1.27.
But if the new bulbs live up to expectations they would cost under 50p
a year to run and even improve health.
Previously researchers have warned that the blue light emitted by
modern bulbs could be stopping people from getting to sleep at night
and campaigners have expressed concerns about the dangerous chemicals
they contain.
Prof Gang Chen, Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
MIT added: "The lighting potential of this technology is exciting.”
The research was published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:15:26 -0800, "Eagle"
wrote:

Dean Hoffman used his keyboard to write :
The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

I just changed all My bulbs to LEDs last week. :/

Someone in Freecycle must have done that last week, because he gave me
a bunch of incandescent bulbs. Maybe 20 of them.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:11:02 AM UTC-6, Micky wrote:

Someone in Freecycle must have done that last week, because he gave me
a bunch of incandescent bulbs. Maybe 20 of them.

....what a dolt...and you advertise! щ（ﾟДﾟщ）

"trader_4" wrote in message news:80a12a7a-

stuff snipped

Why can't "they" actually investigate things instead of just repeating
what someone else (who obviously has a bias/interest) has told them?


Because it's a newspaper and not a technical journal?

Grasshopper, you have become very wise. (-:


E.g., what are the issues standing between "it" and "production"?
What are the *likely* costs going to be if it was sold in HUGE
volumes, *today*? Of those, which can be improved upon with
techological
advances and which are "hard limits"?


You expect a reporter for the Telegraph to do that analysis?

A good science reporter (may NOT be any at the Telegraph) would find
*someone* who could explain what we're wondering: How do you capture broad
spectrum radiation with lots of IR and turn the heat into light? Special
dichroic coatings? A sort of "lasing" reflection of the heat energy that
(here's the magic) converts the IR light to visible light?

The researchers at MIT probably don't even know enough yet to make
that evaluation. Did researchers accurately predict that you'd have a
60" LCD
TV hanging on your wall for $1000 when LCD technology was first
discovered? Was the reporter writing the first article in a general
interest newspaper supposed to?

Actually I think there were a lot of people that realized that even using
the manufacturing techniques of the time that eventually the would "print"
TV's much the same way they use photolithography to make multi-layer chips.
I am sure in a PopScience from 50 years ago someboy got some of this stuff
right. We've had Star Trek like flip-phones for quite some time.

I.e., how much of a pipe dream *is* this?

You expect a reporter for the Telegraph to make that judgement?

Nope. Probably a "general assignment" reporter whose next piece will be on
the oldest living English veteran or what someone dug up under a parking lot
(recently it was the maligned and malformed Richard III).

Nowadays there's always a strong possibility that the article is a hoax
cribbed from a growing number of sites dedicated to falsifying news reports.

On 1/14/2016 1:28 AM, Robert Green wrote:
I.e., how much of a pipe dream *is* this?

You expect a reporter for the Telegraph to make that judgement?

Nope. Probably a "general assignment" reporter whose next piece will be on
the oldest living English veteran or what someone dug up under a parking lot
(recently it was the maligned and malformed Richard III).

Exactly. A fluff piece.

The role of a reporter is to ask the questions his/her *readers* would
ask -- not to simply pass "press releases" on to the public. To sort
out a realistic way of explaining the issue(s) to the readership.
Then, to identify the challenges remaining and likelihood of those
challenges being overcome (e.g., some are NOT solely "funding issues"
but have technical problems that make the solutions impractical;
romm temperature superconductors??)

You can bet your *ss the *researcher* has already thought of these
questions as he's, no doubt, asked them, himself. And, is probably the
*most* OPTIMISTIC of a discovery's/invention's potential. Even a
naive journalist should be able to ask: "So, how much will it cost?"
and "When will we see this being used?" Answers like "it *may*
EVENTUALLY be cheaper than current alternatives" should prompt
"then why can't we have it TODAY?"

Give an interested 8 year old the "microphone" and he'll NATURALLY ask the
questions that the readership is *thinking*.

If you look at these sorts of reports, historically, they are little more
than pipe dreams (where's my rollable OLED TV/phone/display? "cold fusion"?)

Nowadays there's always a strong possibility that the article is a hoax
cribbed from a growing number of sites dedicated to falsifying news reports.

Or, just filler for an advertisement (space/slot) they couldn't sell...

On 1/14/2016 6:36 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 1/14/2016 1:28 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Give an interested 8 year old the "microphone" and he'll NATURALLY ask the
questions that the readership is *thinking*.

If you look at these sorts of reports, historically, they are little more
than pipe dreams (where's my rollable OLED TV/phone/display? "cold fusion"?)

Nowadays there's always a strong possibility that the article is a hoax
cribbed from a growing number of sites dedicated to falsifying news reports.

Or, just filler for an advertisement (space/slot) they couldn't sell...

Contrast the approach in this piece:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2865903/Scientists-create-lifes-spark.html

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:19:35 -0600, Don Y
wrote:

On 1/11/2016 8:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

(sigh) Typical "fluff" story -- media just "retweeting" press releases.
Why can't "they" actually investigate things instead of just repeating
what someone else (who obviously has a bias/interest) has told them?

E.g., what are the issues standing between "it" and "production"?
What are the *likely* costs going to be if it was sold in HUGE
volumes, *today*? Of those, which can be improved upon with techological
advances and which are "hard limits"?

I.e., how much of a pipe dream *is* this?


Curiosity supposedly killed the cat. It will just cost the cat a few
bucks depending on how curious the cat is.
This http://preview.alturl.com/n4apo leads to the original article
in the publication referenced at the end of the Telegraph story.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 1/14/2016 6:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 07:19:35 -0600, Don Y wrote:

On 1/11/2016 8:47 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

The bright boys at MIT think they have a new, really efficient
incandescent.
From the U.K. Telegraph: http://preview.alturl.com/yttys

(bad pun intended)

(sigh) Typical "fluff" story -- media just "retweeting" press releases.
Why can't "they" actually investigate things instead of just repeating
what someone else (who obviously has a bias/interest) has told them?

E.g., what are the issues standing between "it" and "production"?
What are the *likely* costs going to be if it was sold in HUGE
volumes, *today*? Of those, which can be improved upon with techological
advances and which are "hard limits"?

I.e., how much of a pipe dream *is* this?

Curiosity supposedly killed the cat. It will just cost the cat a few
bucks depending on how curious the cat is.
This http://preview.alturl.com/n4apo leads to the original article
in the publication referenced at the end of the Telegraph story.

I'd start he
http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bulbs-0111

And then consult:
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nnano.2015.309-s1.pdf

A quick glance suggest the manufacturing process probably will require LOTS
of retooling -- to deposit ~90 layers on the filaments before encapsulation!
And, no idea how brittle the filaments will end up in a mass-produced
scenario!