"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester, 
... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from 
an incandescent light bulb.  The breakthrough boils down to a laser 
treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one 
day become a standard in the light bulb industry."

Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

On Jun 2, 4:20=A0pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
> "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rocheste=
r,
> ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance fro=
m
> an incandescent light bulb. =A0The breakthrough boils down to a laser
> treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could =
one
> day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>
> Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3D15289

From that article:
"The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."

Huh?  I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
could save energy on a production scale.

R

On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:

> On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
 >
>> "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester,
>> ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from
>> an incandescent light bulb.  The breakthrough boils down to a laser
>> treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one
>> day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>>
>> Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>>
>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289
> 
> From that article:
> "The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
> entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
> 
> Huh?  I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
> didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
> could save energy on a production scale.

Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.

I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious 
to see what he has to say about this.


-- 
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:
> 
>> On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
>  >
>>> "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of 
>>> Rochester,
>>> ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance 
>>> from
>>> an incandescent light bulb.  The breakthrough boils down to a laser
>>> treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which 
>>> could one
>>> day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>>>
>>> Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289
>>
>> From that article:
>> "The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
>> entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
>>
>> Huh?  I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
>> didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
>> could save energy on a production scale.
> 
> Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.
> 
> I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious 
> to see what he has to say about this.
> 
> 

If I was interpreting the article correctly, I believe that what they 
were saying was that they were putting a massive amount of energy into 
the filament over a very short timescale.  so quite possibly the total 
kWh used to "modify" a filament may be very reasonable, but the current 
drawn for that brief instant would be quite massive.  nothing that 
couldn't be handled with a hugeass bank of capacitors.

Now whether, overall, it's worth it... or if it really works... remains 
to be seen.  An interesting read, if nothing else.  I'd certainly be 
inclined to buy a hotrodded incandescent bulb over a CFL given similar 
energy consumption (including the energy used in production)

nate

-- 
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article <B...@earthlink.com>, HeyBub wrote:
>"Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester, 
>... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance from 
>an incandescent light bulb.  The breakthrough boils down to a laser 
>treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which could one 
>day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>
>Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>
>http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289

  The upcoming USA Federal 2012/2014 incandescent ban has lots of 
exceptions and loopholes, including an exception for meeting or exceeding 
an energy efficiency standard that a few incandescents on the market using 
"HIR" technology already meet.  The one in the above article exceeds that 
standard and would be allowed.

http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html

  Meanwhile, the article mentions an incandescent producing as much light 
as a 100 watt "regular incandescent" (my words) with "less than 60 watts".  
26 watt CFLs achieve such light output.

 - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

On Jun 2, 5:32=A0pm, RicodJour  wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:20=A0pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
>
> > "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Roches=
ter,
> > ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance f=
rom
> > an incandescent light bulb. =A0The breakthrough boils down to a laser
> > treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which coul=
d one
> > day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>
> > Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>
> >http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3D15289
>
> From that article:
> "The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
> entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
>
> Huh? =A0I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
> didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
> could save energy on a production scale.
>
> R

A femtosecond is 10 raised to the -15 power.   So, while it's a lot of
power, it lasts for such a short time, that it's not much energy at
all.   If it was any significant amount of energy, it would vaporize
the entire filament, not just change it.

On Jun 2, 6:01=A0pm, Nate Nagel  wrote:
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> > On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:
>
> >> On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
>
> >>> "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of
> >>> Rochester,
> >>> ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance
> >>> from
> >>> an incandescent light bulb. =A0The breakthrough boils down to a laser
> >>> treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which
> >>> could one
> >>> day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>
> >>> Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>
> >>>http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3D15289
>
> >> From that article:
> >> "The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
> >> entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
>
> >> Huh? =A0I think they left out one of the units or something, and if th=
ey
> >> didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
> >> could save energy on a production scale.
>
> > Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the te=
xt.
>
> > I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious
> > to see what he has to say about this.
>
> If I was interpreting the article correctly, I believe that what they
> were saying was that they were putting a massive amount of energy into
> the filament over a very short timescale. =A0so quite possibly the total
> kWh used to "modify" a filament may be very reasonable, but the current
> drawn for that brief instant would be quite massive. =A0nothing that
> couldn't be handled with a hugeass bank of capacitors.
>
> Now whether, overall, it's worth it... or if it really works... remains
> to be seen. =A0An interesting read, if nothing else. =A0I'd certainly be
> inclined to buy a hotrodded incandescent bulb over a CFL given similar
> energy consumption (including the energy used in production)
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


The real problem here is that they didn't do anywhere what the
headline claimed.   According to the facts in the article, they can
produce an incandescent bulb that produces the light of a 100W one
while using only 60W.    While a major improvement, that's still
almost 3X the 23W of a CFL.    MAybe they think they can get there
with further refinement, but it isn't so yet.

t...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Jun 2, 6:01 pm, Nate Nagel  wrote:
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2009 2:32 PM RicodJour spake thus:
>>>> On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
>>>>> "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of
>>>>> Rochester,
>>>>> ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance
>>>>> from
>>>>> an incandescent light bulb.  The breakthrough boils down to a laser
>>>>> treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which
>>>>> could one
>>>>> day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>>>>> Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>>>>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15289
>>>> From that article:
>>>> "The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
>>>> entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
>>>> Huh?  I think they left out one of the units or something, and if they
>>>> didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
>>>> could save energy on a production scale.
>>> Read the comments below the article: lots of sloppy "science" in the text.
>>> I forwarded this article to my pointy-headed scientist friend. Curious
>>> to see what he has to say about this.
>> If I was interpreting the article correctly, I believe that what they
>> were saying was that they were putting a massive amount of energy into
>> the filament over a very short timescale.  so quite possibly the total
>> kWh used to "modify" a filament may be very reasonable, but the current
>> drawn for that brief instant would be quite massive.  nothing that
>> couldn't be handled with a hugeass bank of capacitors.
>>
>> Now whether, overall, it's worth it... or if it really works... remains
>> to be seen.  An interesting read, if nothing else.  I'd certainly be
>> inclined to buy a hotrodded incandescent bulb over a CFL given similar
>> energy consumption (including the energy used in production)
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> The real problem here is that they didn't do anywhere what the
> headline claimed.   According to the facts in the article, they can
> produce an incandescent bulb that produces the light of a 100W one
> while using only 60W.    While a major improvement, that's still
> almost 3X the 23W of a CFL.    MAybe they think they can get there
> with further refinement, but it isn't so yet.

True, but there are applications where an incandescent is more 
appropriate than a CFL (hallway lights, outdoor lighting, etc.) so 
improvements in incandescent technology combined with the use of CFLs 
where appropriate can only reduce our overall energy use.

Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive 
CFLs can.  More savings - why use more light than you need?  Use bright 
bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level. 
Bulbs will last darn near forever, and you can adjust the light level 
from needing a little to make up for an overcast day to much brighter on 
a dark night.

I for one welcome our new energy-saving incandescent overlords :P

nate

-- 
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jun 2, 7:11=A0pm, t...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:32=A0pm, RicodJour  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:20=A0pm, "HeyBub"  wrote:
>
> > > "Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Roch=
ester,
> > > ... have been able to squeeze out fluorescent-like energy performance=
 from
> > > an incandescent light bulb. =A0The breakthrough boils down to a laser
> > > treatment of the bulb's tungsten filament, a processing step which co=
uld one
> > > day become a standard in the light bulb industry."
>
> > > Too late. Incandescent bulbs will soon be illegal.
>
> > >http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3D15289
>
> > From that article:
> > "The pulse lasts a mere femtosecond, and delivers as much power as the
> > entire grid of North America into a needle point size spot."
>
> > Huh? =A0I think they left out one of the units or something, and if the=
y
> > didn't I don't see how using that much energy to modify the filaments
> > could save energy on a production scale.
>
>
> A femtosecond is 10 raised to the -15 power. =A0 So, while it's a lot of
> power, it lasts for such a short time, that it's not much energy at
> all. =A0 If it was any significant amount of energy, it would vaporize
> the entire filament, not just change it.

I know what a femtosecond is, even though I've never actually measured
one (I have a cheap watch).  The article said that for that
femtosecond the power output to convert the filament was as much power
as the entire NA power grid puts out (assumedly for the same
femtosecond).  Multiply that femtosecond power requirement by how many
bulbs produced in {insert time period here} and a lot of those decimal
point zeros fall off and the energy spent to save energy might be
quite large indeed.

It's a crappy article written about something very interesting.

R

On Jun 2, 8:08=A0pm, Nate Nagel  wrote:
>
> Plus, an incandescent can be dimmed out of the box; only a few expensive
> CFLs can. =A0More savings - why use more light than you need? =A0Use brig=
ht
> bulbs in all your fixtures but dim them down to a comfortable level.

Wasting 'light' or energy?  I wonder if most people realize that the
older dimmer switches used a resistor and the potentially-saved energy
is just dissipated as heat - they don't save energy.  The newer ones
chop up the sine wave and do save energy, so if someone is trying to
be energy efficient they will need to upgrade those old dimmers along
with the bulbs.

R