Article in New Scientist Magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)


--
David in Normandy.
To e-mail you must include the password FROG on the
subject line, or it will be automatically deleted
by a filter and not reach my inbox.

In message , David in Normandy
writes
Article in New Scientist Magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...icient-led-lig
hts-on-the-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)


They had someone talking about them on radio 4 today



--
geoff

In article ,
David in Normandy wrote:
Article in New Scientist Magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)

I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for tungsten,
light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them being 'three
times as efficient as fluorescent'.

--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
David in Normandy wrote:
Article in New Scientist Magazine:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ficient-led-li
ghts-on-the-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)

I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for tungsten,
light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them being 'three
times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

--
geoff

In article ,
geoff wrote:
I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for
tungsten, light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them
being 'three times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very long
life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life comes
down.

Looks like they've done a dribble for that article - taken the best bits
from different specs.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for
tungsten, light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them
being 'three times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very long
life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life comes
down.

Looks like they've done a dribble for that article - taken the best bits
from different specs.

These were the figures given by the head of the department doing this
development. I was driving at the time and not paying too much attention

--
geoff

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:11:37 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for
tungsten, light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them
being 'three times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very long
life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life comes
down.

Looks like they've done a dribble for that article - taken the best bits
from different specs.

These were the figures given by the head of the department doing this
development. I was driving at the time and not paying too much attention

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? :-)

--
Frank Erskine

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:11:37 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for
tungsten, light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them
being 'three times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very long
life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life comes
down.

Looks like they've done a dribble for that article - taken the best bits
from different specs.

These were the figures given by the head of the department doing this
development. I was driving at the time and not paying too much attention

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? :-)


Well they only need to be 3x as efficient OR last 10 times longer to be
worth it so even removing the pinch of salt...

He also was quoted:

'Humphreys reckons that the UK government encouraged consumers to drop
tungsten bulbs too soon. "We should have stayed with tungsten for another
five years and then switched to LEDs'

Can't help feeling he may turn out to be right.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for
tungsten, light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them
being 'three times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very long
life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life comes
down.

LED efficiency goes _up_ when they are underrun and cooler. Possibly
you mean "push them hard so the output goes up".

In article ,
Bob Mannix wrote:

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:11:37 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
I'd not hold my breath for LED being a suitable replacement for
tungsten, light quality wise. Nor do I believe their bit about them
being 'three times as efficient as fluorescent'.

Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very
long life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life
comes down.

Looks like they've done a dribble for that article - taken the best
bits from different specs.

These were the figures given by the head of the department doing this
development. I was driving at the time and not paying too much
attention

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? :-)


Well they only need to be 3x as efficient OR last 10 times longer to be
worth it so even removing the pinch of salt...

He also was quoted:

'Humphreys reckons that the UK government encouraged consumers to drop
tungsten bulbs too soon. "We should have stayed with tungsten for
another five years and then switched to LEDs'

Can't help feeling he may turn out to be right.

Or simply an axe to grind. Who knows what further developments will happen
with fluorescents in that time? Or perhaps HID might join the act.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
These were the figures given by the head of the department doing this
development. I was driving at the time and not paying too much attention

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? :-)

Indeed. Development needs funding. And funding is often raised by hype.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Alan Braggins wrote:
That would be a breakthrough too. LEDs when under run have a very long
life - but push them hard so the efficiency goes up and the life comes
down.

LED efficiency goes _up_ when they are underrun and cooler. Possibly
you mean "push them hard so the output goes up".

Yes - should have said effectiveness rather than efficiency.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
David in Normandy writes:
Article in New Scientist Magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)

Don't get too excited. The LED industry is consistent in only a
few things -- consistently failing to deliver anything usable,
and overhyping everything they do, which is essential to lure
in the venture capital funders.

Don't get me wrong -- there are some exciting LED products there
and I've been playing with a few in limited situations where LED
lighting does make sense. But we're a long way from a general,
affordable and usable solution. If you thought CFL's were poor
at lighting, they're streeks ahead of LEDs are.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David in Normandy writes:
Article in New Scientist Magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)

Don't get too excited. The LED industry is consistent in only a
few things -- consistently failing to deliver anything usable,
and overhyping everything they do, which is essential to lure
in the venture capital funders.

Don't get me wrong -- there are some exciting LED products there
and I've been playing with a few in limited situations where LED
lighting does make sense. But we're a long way from a general,
affordable and usable solution. If you thought CFL's were poor
at lighting, they're streeks ahead of LEDs are.

"streeks ahead" - Freudian slip?!

I have a 9-LED front bike light and have just purchased (for work) a LED
Lenser torch ("as preferred by the Old Bill" etc), both of which are
excellent. LED's are probably ahead for cold spot lighting over CFL's. For
general room lighting and other colour temperatures, of course, it's a
different matter. However, even ignoring the hype there's probably a lot
more development potential in LEDS, and the simplicity and small size of LED
systems are already attractive. I agree with the quotee when he feels that
the ban on incandescent lights should have waited until we could see what
LED developments were possible.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Mannix wrote:

Well they only need to be 3x as efficient OR last 10 times longer to be
worth it so even removing the pinch of salt...

He also was quoted:

'Humphreys reckons that the UK government encouraged consumers to drop
tungsten bulbs too soon. "We should have stayed with tungsten for
another five years and then switched to LEDs'

Can't help feeling he may turn out to be right.

Or simply an axe to grind. Who knows what further developments will happen
with fluorescents in that time? Or perhaps HID might join the act.

And in theory, 60% efficient incandescents are possible:
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2002/tungsten.htm

I'm not expecting economic mass production of photonic lattice based
materials any time soon though.

In article ,
Bob Mannix wrote:
I have a 9-LED front bike light and have just purchased (for work) a LED
Lenser torch ("as preferred by the Old Bill" etc), both of which are
excellent.

With respect, that sort of lamp has little in common with room lighting.

LED's are probably ahead for cold spot lighting over CFL's.

For the above use they're cheaper. No power supply. But small battery
fluorescents are available. Not that they would make sense for a bike
light or torch - but can be for something where a non directional source
is needed. Other thing is you'll be restricted in tube types for a small
fitting.


For general room lighting and other colour temperatures, of course,
it's a different matter. However, even ignoring the hype there's
probably a lot more development potential in LEDS, and the simplicity
and small size of LED systems are already attractive. I agree with the
quotee when he feels that the ban on incandescent lights should have
waited until we could see what LED developments were possible.

I don't see the point in banning incandescent at all. It's simply a
'something must be done' gesture that doesn't require those in charge to
actually have to address the real problems.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

David in Normandy wrote:
Article in New Scientist Magazine:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e-horizon.html

Sounds like the CFL bulbs may be obsolete in five years time. Good
riddance to them too. So I just need a 5 year stock of 100w Tungsten
filament bulbs :-)

What is gallium and what risk does it pose to us? I've seen many a nonsense
scare story about CFLs mercury content. The next is to be gallium?

I am a long time subscriber to NS. From the early 70s from recollection.

A research project that I was involved in (in the 80s) indicated that
processes we undertook in the UK were ensuring that the public were being
protected from health risks and gave a green route for "wastes". A reporter
from NS spoke to a University researcher and myself to enquire as to the
benefits/ concerns of a certain practice. All evidence was sound indicating
that current practice was right.

The journalist, then at NS, decided that facts should not get in the way of
a story, totally misrepresenting the research at hand.

My name was mud at that time as a result, but I bounced back. The journalist
concerned has continued to ensure that facts should not get in the way of a
story. I don't know whether the person came through the mirror school of
journalism or not.

PS. I still subscribe to NS to keep abreast of current scientific issues. I
discount the "facts" that are described and consider the copy as a flag to
issues I need research in more creditable documents/ websites.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:02:50 -0000, Clot wrote:

-------------------8
PS. I still subscribe to NS to keep abreast of current scientific issues. I
discount the "facts" that are described and consider the copy as a flag to
issues I need research in more creditable documents/ websites.

You're probably already aware of Ben Goldacre's campaign against lowest
common denominator journalism?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badscience

geoff wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
...
Plus - with a quoted lifetime of about 10 years, there will be forces
abroad to scupper them

The only forces required to scupper them will be financial. CFLs have a
theoretical long lifetime, but such cheap components are used in them that they
tend to burn out much quicker.

-- JJ