Article in New Scientist Magazine:
In message , David in Normandy writes
They had someone talking about them on radio 4 today
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'.
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
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.
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
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.
LED efficiency goes _up_ when they are underrun and cooler. Possibly you mean "push them hard so the output goes up".
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.
Indeed. Development needs funding. And funding is often raised by hype.
Yes - should have said effectiveness rather than efficiency.
And we return full circle to Global Warming! :o)
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.
And in theory, 60% efficient incandescents are possible:
With respect, that sort of lamp has little in common with room lighting.
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.
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.
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.
-------------------8><
You're probably already aware of Ben Goldacre's campaign against lowest common denominator journalism?
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
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.