backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 173 comment(s) - last by Alpha4.. on Feb 5 at 5:32 PM


Cambridge University professor Colin Humphreys shows off his team's new LED which is near to production. It will cost around $2.85 to produce, and will last 60 years.  (Source: Matthew Power MASONS)

The new lightbulbs are bright and more efficient than traditional designs. And unlike other green bulbs they contain no toxic mercury, they turn on instantly, and they do not flicker.  (Source: Matthew Power MASONS)
Future of lighting looks bright with new invention

The race towards better, more affordable solid state lighting is heating up quickly.  The U.S. government has sponsored a $20M USD prize for the first team of researchers to come up with solid state lighting that meets a strict set of standards.  New research has finally helped to eliminate the LED droop typically associated with the higher currents needed to provide greater efficiencies.

Now a team at Cambridge University may be close to having a winning design on their hands, perhaps for the L Prize, if they're eligible, and for the consumer market.  The university has produced a new design which costs a mere $2.85 USD and despite being the size of a penny, produces similar light to a fluorescent bulb while lasting over four times as long with a lifetime of 60 years. 

The new design triples fluorescent bulb efficiency and is 12 times more efficient than incandescent designs.  Also, it’s capable of instantaneous illumination, so the light lag associated with fluorescent bulbs may soon be a thing of the past.

If installed across all of Britain, the researchers estimate that it could cut the country's lighting portion of the energy budget from 20 percent to 5 percent a year.  The U.S. could muster a similar 10 percent drop with the design, according to recent DOE estimates.  The new bulbs last 100,000 hours and unlike other "eco" bulbs, they contain no mercury, a substance that can cause brain damage in humans.  They also don't flicker, while other green designs do, something that's been blamed for triggering epileptic fits.

Officials say the new design could cut 40 million tons of carbon emissions in Britain alone.  Britain recently stopped restocking certain incandescent bulbs in stores.  The new design relies on a specially formulated gallium nitride semiconductor, which builds on previous LED work.  It is brighter than traditional designs and relatively cheap from a chemical perspective, compared to more exotic chemistries.

The British researchers managed to make the LEDs even more affordable by growing them on silicon wafers instead of on sapphire wafers, the traditional method of production.  This makes them at last cheap enough for the consumer market.  Growing the LEDs on silicon was assisted by a number of advances at other U.S. and European research institutions.

While some designs take decades to reach the market, Cambridge's design is already being prototyped and readied for production.  RFMD in County Durham, England is the first manufacturer to jump at the opportunity to mass produce and ship the high-performing LED bulbs.

Professor Colin Humphreys, head of the team at Cambridge states, "This could well be the holy grail in terms of providing our lighting needs for the future.  We are very close to achieving highly efficient, low-cost white LEDs.  That won't just be good news for the environment. It will also benefit consumers by cutting their electricity bills.   It is our belief they will render current energy-efficiency bulbs redundant."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Very sad day...
By dj LiTh on 1/29/2009 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 5
The death of the joke "How many _____ does it take to screw in a light bulb" will be a thing of the past.... As with a 60 year expectancy people will almost never have to do this again.

In my day we went through thousands of light bulbs! You kids with your silly LED contraptions dont know how lucky you have it!




RE: Very sad day...
By therealnickdanger on 1/29/2009 4:23:42 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but by then, the joke will be:

"How many Gorgomaxian* slavers does it take to configure a fusion resonator?"

*the race that will conquer us all in 2012


RE: Very sad day...
By Avitar on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Very sad day...
By yacoub on 2/2/2009 6:53:34 PM , Rating: 3
see what happens when you make fun of the anointed one? -1 for you, sir!


RE: Very sad day...
By Alpha4 on 2/5/2009 5:32:03 PM , Rating: 3
Thou hast smote him but good!


RE: Very sad day...
By arazok on 1/29/2009 4:28:10 PM , Rating: 5
I look forward to telling my kids crazy tales about how we’d use a potato to unscrew broken bulbs.


RE: Very sad day...
By quiksilvr on 1/29/2009 4:33:03 PM , Rating: 5
And how we used to paint our walls with lead and filled up our bulbs with mercury and our cars ran on oil.


RE: Very sad day...
By whiskerwill on 1/29/2009 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 5
And how we all still survived just fine despite it.


RE: Very sad day...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 5:13:22 PM , Rating: 3
In the 18th and 19th century, massive amounts of mercury were given to patients as a cure-all for many different diseases (the so-called "blue pill"); there are reports of people ingesting more than a pint of elemental mercury at a single setting. And of course, lead pipes have been used for centuries.

Heavy metals and especially some of their compounds are unquestionably toxic. But the modern belief that incredibly trace amounts are dangerous is verging on superstition about as ill-founded as the ancient's belief that they were wholly innoculous. Eliminating lead in paint was probably reasonable. But the much smaller amounts of lead in solder or mercury in light bulbs is quite a different story entirely.


RE: Very sad day...
By Doormat on 1/29/2009 5:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
That reminds me of the story (I think from Maine) where a woman had a CFL break, and the quote to clean it up was $2,000. This was back when people knew CFLs had mercury but didn't know how much or what to do if it broke.


RE: Very sad day...
By Screwballl on 1/30/2009 1:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That reminds me of the story (I think from Maine) where a woman had a CFL break, and the quote to clean it up was $2,000. This was back when people knew CFLs had mercury but didn't know how much or what to do if it broke.


That story was never proven nor disproven by snopes (and several other sites.)

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

They state that it is not required to call in a special toxic cleanup team, but the story linked is from 2007 when the lady did just that and they estimated the $2000 charges. Sounds like someone just being taken advantage of.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=552...


RE: Very sad day...
By psenechal on 1/29/2009 5:30:55 PM , Rating: 5
It really depends on the person too...my girlfriend almost died from heavy metal poisoning, caused by the mercury in the fillings in her teeth when it somehow started to leech into her bloodstream. They caught it in time and replaced all her fillings with porcelain, but not before it caused liver and kidney damage.


RE: Very sad day...
By Samus on 1/30/2009 4:02:01 AM , Rating: 4
I had a similar problem with the fillings in my teeth, and although there is no way to prove brain damage, needing a new kidney at my age is evidence enough. I'd had 9 'silver' fillings since I was a young kid, eating too much sugar for sure, and as soon as I had them removed for medical reasons, I can't tell you how much better my mouth and head felt. It's like radio interference was making my head feel weird before, but I'd had the fillings for so long I didn't even know what 'normal' felt like.

Anybody, ANYONE, who has metal fillings, I would recommend you have them removed for medical and quality-of-life reasons.


RE: Very sad day...
By afkrotch on 1/30/2009 7:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a case by case basis. I have amalgam fillings and have had zero issues. I haven't had any kind of sickness (cept headaches about once a year or so - lack of sleep, too much caffeine, too little water type headaches) for 10 years now.

Now it's better to simply get rid of the possibility all together, that's for sure.


RE: Very sad day...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Very sad day...
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 6:35:47 PM , Rating: 5
That's a matter of opinion. ;)


RE: Very sad day...
By bjacobson on 1/30/2009 10:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
And this is why we shouldn't listen to internet doctors. Simply removing them isn't going to help the mercury in your head at all. The mercury gets past the membrane to depths of the brain that other chemicals, which can bond with and remove the mercury, cannot penetrate. Simply removing metal fillings is not going to magically remove any mercury that made it into your brain. You experienced the placebo effect. Correlation is not causation.


RE: Very sad day...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2009 11:10:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Simply removing metal fillings is not going to magically remove any mercury that made it into your brain. You experienced the placebo effect. Correlation is not causation.
It's also possible he simply had a head full of old, leaking fillings, and replacing them with new ones -- even if they remained metal amalgam -- would have cured his problem as well.

The 'mercury in fillings' scare is one of the more absurd reminders of the weaknesses of the human intellect. The tiny amounts of mercury involved are in no way a risk to human health.


RE: Very sad day...
By MrPoletski on 1/30/2009 4:43:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It really depends on the person too...my girlfriend almost died from heavy metal poisoning


Too much Metallica.


RE: Very sad day...
By callmeroy on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Very sad day...
By Spivonious on 1/30/2009 10:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
It's 10:03 and you're at a zero. lol


RE: Very sad day...
By Chernobyl68 on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Very sad day...
By murphyslabrat on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Very sad day...
By dever on 1/30/2009 11:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
Even before a little internet searching, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of mercury poisoning from fillings. After a quick internet search I'm much MORE skeptical. Come on people, use a little critical thinking.


RE: Very sad day...
By Parhel on 1/29/2009 6:35:33 PM , Rating: 3
While I agree that the scare surrounding mercury contained in vaccines was particularly silly, I actually think the whole autism scare is FUD.

Diagnoses of autism continue to rise, just as diagnoses of mental retardation fall. It seems clear that we are seeing a change in the diagnostic criteria rather than in actual prevalance.

We should absolutely look to remove heavy metals from and keep them out of products we are regularly and directly exposed to, such as the lead in paint. The possibility always exists that a small child might put something like that in his or her mouth. But removing lead from solder seems totally unnecessary.


RE: Very sad day...
By wvh on 1/30/2009 1:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the lead and toxins in one wire or piece of working equipment that matters here, but the accumulation in places where such equipment is gathered to be disposed of – after the product's life cycle. High concentrations at dump sites do have a large impact on the surroundings and environment.


RE: Very sad day...
By Denithor on 1/30/2009 9:22:10 AM , Rating: 3
Don't worry about that too much - the Chinese are just shipping it right back to us!


RE: Very sad day...
By Parhel on 1/29/2009 6:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that the scare surrounding mercury contained in vaccines was particularly silly, I actually think the whole autism scare is FUD.

Diagnoses of autism continue to rise, just as diagnoses of mental retardation fall. It seems clear that we are seeing a change in the diagnostic criteria rather than in actual prevalance.

We should absolutely look to remove heavy metals from and keep them out of products we are regularly and directly exposed to, such as the lead in paint. The possibility always exists that a small child might put something like that in his or her mouth. But removing lead from solder seems totally unnecessary.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 1/29/2009 7:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the much smaller amounts of lead in solder or mercury in light bulbs is quite a different story entirely.


You forget we live in a to consume sociëty. Everything is electronics now. The sheer amount of electronic waste is enormous and therefore the amount of lead and other heavy metals. Now, i feel that when everything is seperated properly and processed properly there is not really an issue when it comes to using heavy and toxic materials. However, the free market forced modern sociëty in this behaviour of just trowing everything away and not to process and recycle our e-waste. Taking properly care of waste raises the price of the end product and the consumer does not want to pay for this clean up.

Thus the solution is that everything has to be made from non toxic materials. That is not a bad thing, but i really wonder how much magic tricks the carbon magician has left in it's hat. Every element can be a solution to an engineering problem. It is all very easy to understand.

Lead stacks up in ones body and does damage to the nervous system and organs. Even the greeks and romans knew lead was poisonous. look up the names Dioscorides and Marcus Vitruvius Pollio. Both important people and knew 2000 years ago that lead can be poisonous.

quote:
In the 18th and 19th century, massive amounts of mercury were given to patients as a cure-all for many different diseases (the so-called "blue pill"); there are reports of people ingesting more than a pint of elemental mercury at a single setting. And of course, lead pipes have been used for centuries.


Cocaine was at that time also considered a "cure-all".
At that time there where intelligent people but also a lot of crackpots. Because something was used does not mean it is not dangerous. Asbest has also been widely used and is also highly toxic. In the 50ties , the yellow eggyolk was also considered healthy just as everything with to much of the bad cholesterol in it. A small amount is beneficial but too much kills you. Just trying to make clear that at those times the wisdom was not always there...


RE: Very sad day...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 8:30:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Because something was used does not mean it is not dangerous...In the 50ties , the yellow eggyolk was also considered healthy...
And if someone came to us today, and said that nanogram quantities of egg yolk were a huge risk to human health, and we should spend billions to eliminate them from the environment, we would rightfully laugh them out of the room. Yet people strangely remain silent on other, equally ridiculous claims.

Yes, feeding patients pints of liquid mercury was rather dangerous. But the notion that a few stray atoms of lead or mercury (and that is indeed all you're likely to absorb from modern electronics) is any sort of health risk is equally silly.

There isn't an element or chemical compound on earth that isn't dangerous in some quantity. Too much free oxygen will damage organs, and an overly large dose of water can cause poisoning. The dose determines the risk.

quote:
Asbest has also been widely used and is also highly toxic.
Asbestos is actually one of the most overblown environmental scares also. It's valuable for enriching tort attorneys (it remains the single largest damages payout by far in all human history) but the actual risk was, for non-occupational exposure, almost zero. Even for occupational exposures -- say an asbestos miner -- the risk was still rather low. In fact, one prominent study showed that asbestos miners had a very high risk to develop health problems from asbestos-- but only after they had outlived the general population by several years. In other words, the health benefit from their exercise-heavy lifestyle outweighed the risk from the mines. Bear in mind these were people who spent decades breathing doses millions of times higher than what an average person would receive from asbestos use in the hoom or office.

Also bear in mind that many people receive large asbestos doses naturally. The populations of several CA counties, in fact, receive doses dozens of times higher than EPA guidelines allow...just from the natural rock outcroppings in their areas.

Is breathing large amounts of asbestos fibers over lengthy periods a bad idea? Yes, especially if you're also a smoker. Does that mean all asbestos products and applications need to be banned utterly? No, of course not.


RE: Very sad day...
By onelittleindian on 1/29/2009 8:53:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Asbestos is actually one of the most overblown environmental scares
The DDT scare beats asbestos hands down.


RE: Very sad day...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 7:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
True but DDT didn't result in massive amounts of government payouts and lawsuits that continue to this very day.


RE: Very sad day...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 7:44:35 AM , Rating: 1
I have a friend who worked in the Yorktown here in Charleston (a WW2 era aircraft carrier that is now a tourist stop). He has told us many time about how working down in the lower parts of the ship, there is asbestos lying all over the place. They didn't worry about it at all.


RE: Very sad day...
By bldckstark on 1/30/2009 1:06:02 PM , Rating: 3
Asbestos is dangerous when it is airborne, not in a solid state/at rest. When you inhale asbestos it causes scarring in the lungs. Each little scar can no longer operate in it's intended capacity. Get enough of these tiny scars, and you have a problem breathing.

My dad died from complications of Asbestosis.


RE: Very sad day...
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/30/2009 6:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
Harm from lead present in electronics is something I don't quite get.

Does plumb get so instable at the hottest possible ambient temperatures that even when trapped inside some device it can leak in gaseous form in such a way that can be harmful, even in long term exposure?

I'm not an MD to know what heavy metal poisoning is like and if it has a cumulative effect over time, and so I ask these questions:

small trace amounts do or do not get eliminated from the organism?

if they don't, how much lead do you need to accumulate in your system in order to get really sick?

and finally... are the possible leakages coming out of electronic appliances high enough to generate a bad effect even in the long run?

My personal impression is that this is a nonsense, but as I said, not being myself an MD nor too acknowledgeable about anatomy I could easily be mistaken.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 1/30/2009 12:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well, think of how trash is processed. And think of lethal chemicals can be in that trash. With metals like lead it is the same.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not the same, the lead was already present in nature until mined for use, removing it.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 2/4/2009 12:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, already present in nature, hidden away or bonded where it cannot do harm. That lethal chemicals exist in nature does not make them suddenly enviromental friendly or not dangerous. The lethal toxins found in for example yellyfish are also natural but that does not mean they are not dangerous. A crocodile is natural but can be dangerous too. But spilling heavy metals around where it can be found sooner or later inside for example lakes is not a healthy thing. Especially if it can be found later in the food you eat from that lake. Already we see mercury levels rising in fish. Why because the fish eat smaller lifeforms where the mercury levels quickly stack up because of there lifecycle and feeding habits.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 1/30/2009 12:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There isn't an element or chemical compound on earth that isn't dangerous in some quantity. Too much free oxygen will damage organs, and an overly large dose of water can cause poisoning. The dose determines the risk.


That is true but some elements are naturally more dangerous. If that may be because of mutagenic properties or because of some process in the cell is disturbed i can only guess. It can very well be that asbestos it self does not cause cancer with every person but it sure disturbs the normal lung function and therefore makes the lungs more vulnerable for real pathogens that are normally just taken care of by the body's natural defense. this is best witnessed with people who have a weakened or no immune system. I myself am not going to take the risk.


RE: Very sad day...
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/29/2009 9:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everything is electronics now. The sheer amount of electronic waste is enormous and therefore the amount of lead and other heavy metals. Now, i feel that when everything is seperated properly and processed properly there is not really an issue when it comes to using heavy and toxic materials. However, the free market forced modern sociëty in this behaviour of just trowing everything away and not to process and recycle our e-waste. Taking properly care of waste raises the price of the end product and the consumer does not want to pay for this clean up.

Thus the solution is that everything has to be made from non toxic materials. That is not a bad thing, but i really wonder how much magic tricks the carbon magician has left in it's hat. Every element can be a solution to an engineering problem. It is all very easy to understand.

Easy to understand; in principle perhaps, and insofar as making such comfortingly simple statements like "oh, we'll just use non-toxic materials", yes, it's quite simple. It's also reminiscent of the fabled bell around the cat's neck.

How many modern electrical components can you name that are made with non-toxic materials? Nearly everything we use, even down to the simplest components, are made from or with toxic chemicals, for example, electrolytic capacitors and semiconductors of all types. Or how about the fiberglass and resins which are used to form the PCBs on which we build circuits? Maybe we can find suitable replacements for these materials, but undoubtedly the manufacture of the devices will still involve toxic processes. Those chemicals may not be directly in the hands of the consumer, but they eventually have to be disposed of somewhere. It's all a matter of tradeoffs. You never will get something for nothing; there always will be toxic materials involved somewhere along the line.

Removing lead from solder may seem like a good idea at face value, but like I said, there is a tradeoff. One reason lead was originally added was to counter the phenomenon known as 'tin whiskers,' in which tin naturally grows thin whisker-like structures from its surface, which can cause shorts to other exposed circuit nodes. Surface-mounted ICs with the leads less than a millimeter apart are some of the most likely places for whiskers to cause problems. Tin whiskers were a known killer of circuits as far back as the '50s, and forming an alloy with lead virtually eliminates the problem. Furthermore, there is no known solution to the problem, and other alloys of tin do not stop the growth nearly as well as lead-tin. Now that lead has been removed from most circuits, expect to see an increase in failures in coming years. Perhaps we eliminated some lead exposure from our lives, though the extent of that exposure is debatable, and for most pepople, negligible. Maybe we should have waited for all those other wonderful non-toxic circuit components before guaranteeing increased quantities of electronic waste.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, I'm just trying to add a dose of reality to all this happy talk.


RE: Very sad day...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 7:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
What I love is how people bought into the hype of getting lead free solder and then complain when their electronics don't last as long. I wonder why....

Some people are stupid enough to think that if you merely touch lead you will get lead poisoning.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 1/30/2009 1:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many modern electrical components can you name that are made with non-toxic materials? Nearly everything we use, even down to the simplest components, are made from or with toxic chemicals, for example, electrolytic capacitors and semiconductors of all types. Or how about the fiberglass and resins which are used to form the PCBs on which we build circuits? Maybe we can find suitable replacements for these materials, but undoubtedly the manufacture of the devices will still involve toxic processes. Those chemicals may not be directly in the hands of the consumer, but they eventually have to be disposed of somewhere. It's all a matter of tradeoffs. You never will get something for nothing; there always will be toxic materials involved somewhere along the line.


My real name is devil's advocate, did you not know ? :)
You are very right and possibly it is not just case of e-waste but also how these products are made. There is always some need for human in the production lines and this can be a factor too. Not everything can be solved at once. And most toxic materials we will always have to continue to use. That is reality.

quote:
Removing lead from solder may seem like a good idea at face value, but like I said, there is a tradeoff. One reason lead was originally added was to counter the phenomenon known as 'tin whiskers,' in which tin naturally grows thin whisker-like structures from its surface, which can cause shorts to other exposed circuit nodes. Surface-mounted ICs with the leads less than a millimeter apart are some of the most likely places for whiskers to cause problems. Tin whiskers were a known killer of circuits as far back as the '50s, and forming an alloy with lead virtually eliminates the problem. Furthermore, there is no known solution to the problem, and other alloys of tin do not stop the growth nearly as well as lead-tin. Now that lead has been removed from most circuits, expect to see an increase in failures in coming years. Perhaps we eliminated some lead exposure from our lives, though the extent of that exposure is debatable, and for most pepople, negligible. Maybe we should have waited for all those other wonderful non-toxic circuit components before guaranteeing increased quantities of electronic waste. Sorry to sound so pessimistic, I'm just trying to add a dose of reality to all this happy talk.


I agree lead free soldering is no fun. I have personal experience with it and i hate it, for me doing a hobby like building electronic devices like robotics or custom design for people like for example artists i prefer lead/tin solder. And afcourse the resins are not that healthy either. Good air conditioning / refreshins is a must when doing soldering. Lead tin solder also has a habit of drawing the components into their correct positions. You can place the components under an angle but when the solder melts and the flux get's active the components align them self with the solderpads onm the pcb. With ordinary leadfree solder this is not the case. Tin whiskers are a serious problem but a special form of flux takes care of that. Flux by the way is a chemical mixture that makes sure no short circuits appear and the solder only will be found on the solderpads /legs after the soldering process.
There are already special leadfree solders available see this page for more information :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 1/30/2009 1:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, Medical systems, military and for as i know flight system do not have to be lead free. But in all honesty i base this on old information. It can very well be that the laws or rules have changed.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
There is no "special form of flux" that takes care of tin whiskers. Flux does NOT make sure no short circuits appear, it has two primary functions:

1) Cause the molten solder to flow, by reducing surface tension.

2) Based on it's pH, activity level, it cleans the metal parts for a better bond.

While these two functions may indeed cause the solder to stay where it should be and not cause a short circuit, that's not always the case for example if too much solder were used the flux will encourage short circuits by causing the solder to flow beyond the intended boundary of application.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 2/1/2009 4:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no "special form of flux" that takes care of tin whiskers. Flux does NOT make sure no short circuits appear, it has two primary functions:


quote:
While these two functions may indeed cause the solder to stay where it should be and not cause a short circuit,


I smell a contradiction.

And that the amount of solderpaste used should be not more then appropriate. Flux was specially designed to reduce the amount of solderballs, tin whiskers and bad connections. And when i use flux together with too much solder the solder does not create short circuits. Why, because molten solder also has the tendency to creep up to the spot with the highest temperature and that would be the solder iron tip. Now when using hot air or infrared radiation the metal parts of the chip and the solderpads are the most hot and therefore the solder creeps to those spots. Afcourse your right that way too too too much much solder makes 1 big short circuit but double or triple the amount of solder needed together with the use of a solder iron does not necessarily mean a short circuit.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 2/1/2009 5:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
I have to add, this is for leaded solder. It's the lead that gives the solder it's easy soldering properties.

For leadfree solder it's still true although less. But then again, my knowledge on the newest leadfree solders is limited. It may well be that the newest versions behave very similair to ordinary lead/tin solder.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 2/1/2009 8:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
With any commonly used solder, the flux is needed to make it flow, not specifically formulated to do anything in particular that prevents shorts beyond the need to make it flow.

Therefore, whether it prevents shorts is a side-effect. It would be like saying rain-jackets are designed to prevent wallets from getting damaged, because your wallet was in your pocket while it was raining.


RE: Very sad day...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/1/2009 10:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
No. Flux is not meant to prevent tin whiskers, nor is it meant to help the solder "flow". It's a simple wetting agent, to help the solder bond to its target.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 2/3/2009 3:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
I feel we are talking about different fluxes . There is the flux in solder called rosin. That does not really have the properties i am taling about. And there is flux for smt soldering that i am talking about that has some additional chemicals added to it that are not present in the core flux found in solderwire and fluxes that have no resins at all :

http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/search/browse.jsp?N=5000...

http://uk.farnell.com/multicore-loctite/x3312i/flu...

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/82705.pdf

See the datasheets for more information.

The lead in lead solder also wet's the metallic parts the solder has to stay on.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 2/3/2009 9:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's what a wetting agent is. Flow.


RE: Very sad day...
By Ringold on 1/29/2009 11:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, the free market forced modern sociëty in this behaviour of just trowing everything away and not to process and recycle our e-waste. Taking properly care of waste raises the price of the end product and the consumer does not want to pay for this clean up.


Oh please. Typical garbage. The free market allowed people to make choices that you personally dislike, that being to save money by buying things that wont last a million years and not caring what happens to things after they toss them away. The free market isn't the problem, your problem is with the ability of people do make their own decisions. This is why Milton Friedman, any many others, tie capitalism directly with individual liberties.


RE: Very sad day...
By William Gaatjes on 1/30/2009 1:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
I knew it, I just write "freemarket" and there is always someone responding from the known group :).

Freemarket without control to take the edges off. The customer is the deciding factor but most customers are not that well informed. It is a chicken or the egg problem.


RE: Very sad day...
By sviola on 1/30/2009 8:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
They used to do the same with Petroleum in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century.

Also, just for the curiosity, Petroleum is said "sweet" or "sour" (due to Sulphur levels on it, the less Sulphur the better and "sweeter") because back in the 19th century people used to taste it to decide if it was any good. This was a habit that was brought from the sale of wale oil, that was used for public lighting.


RE: Very sad day...
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 6:28:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Heavy metals and especially some of their compounds are unquestionably toxic. But the modern belief that incredibly trace amounts are dangerous is verging on superstition....
Good point. Mercury, asbestos, and numerous other toxins are most harmful (or harmful in a lower dosage) when they're inhaled. That's why the term "mad as a hatter" (inhaled mercury vapors while shaping hats) is around. Touched or ingested mercury isn't as toxic (not that I want to handle it or ingest it). It's important to look at the amount of exposure and the type of exposure (contact, inhaled, ingested, etc.) before condemning any substance.

As a society, we have had a tendency to overreact when we found that a substance could be harmful. A small amount of lead, mercury, or asbestos used in a manufactured product isn't likely to be any danger to the user, and with reasonable precautions, won't be a hazard to the workers making it.

You can "drown" in less than 4 oz of water and drinking 1-2 gallons of water in a few hours can deplete your sodium and potassium levels enough to kill you. Should we start restricting the use of water in foods, beverages, and manufacturing? Sodium, chlorine, sulfur, and iodine can all kill you with fairly small quantities, but they're all essential minerals for your body.

It may be a challenge for some, but we have to think before acting. Ask questions, get the facts, have discussions, etc.


RE: Very sad day...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 9:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thank god not everyone's an idiot.


RE: Very sad day...
By icanhascpu on 1/29/2009 10:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Uphill both ways


RE: Very sad day...
By phxfreddy on 1/30/2009 10:10:46 AM , Rating: 1
....and how one sad day a bunch of white people got really neurotic about aging and stopped having children and got so self centered that they wanted to live forever. But since they could not live forever or talk about it as such they decided to channel their energies into neurotic unscientific environMENTAL policies.


RE: Very sad day...
By codeThug on 2/3/2009 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
I sure miss munching the 'ole lead paint chips on my crib.

The new stuff just doesn't taste quite right.


RE: Very sad day...
By tastyratz on 1/29/2009 4:46:56 PM , Rating: 4
How about screwing in a light bulb at all being a thing of the past?
If something like this goes into production I am willing to bet we would see a decline in bulb sales. Most likely with a 60 year lifespan the bulbs would simply just be hard built right into the fixtures and allow for more creative ways of setting it up.

I would be curious to see specifications on the prototype. CRI, lumens per watt, physical dimensions for specific luminary requirements, voltage it runs on, etc.


RE: Very sad day...
By Jeffk464 on 1/30/2009 12:26:22 AM , Rating: 3
I would still want it to unscrew. I don't see wanting to keep a fixture for 60 years. Toss the fixture, keep the bulb.


RE: Very sad day...
By Denithor on 1/30/2009 9:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah - toss the $50 fixture and save the $2.85 bulb.


RE: Very sad day...
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 7:06:44 PM , Rating: 1
That $50 fixture you pay for once. The $2.85 (or $15) light bulb, you pay for (in electricity cost) every time you use it.

Let's assume (as stated in the article) the final product is 3x as efficient as CFL, which means a 5W LED is comparable to a 15W CFL or a 60W incandescent. Let's assume usage of 4hr/day for 50 years. 4hr x 365.25d/y x 50yr = 73,050 hrs.
60W x 73,050hr = 4383 KWh @ $.15/KWh = $657.45 + 30-50 bulbs
15W x 73,050hr = 1096 KWh @ $.15/KWh = $164.40 + 6-12 CFL bulbs
5W x 73,050hr = 365 KWh @ $.15/KWh = $ 54.79 + 1 LED bulb

In any case, the $50 fixture costs less than the bulb plus electricity. Which one is really more valuable?


RE: Very sad day...
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 11:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
Those numbers assume one light bulb per fixture, and that's not very realistic for a $50 fixture. In reality, you're looking at 2 to 6 bulbs per fixture, so the real cost of the bulbs is 2-6 times what I listed above. Any way you look at it, unless you're talking about a very expensive fixture, the cost of the electricity dwarfs the cost of the fixture and/or bulbs. Even with 2 bulbs per fixture, the electricity cost of LED vs. CFL saves enough to replace the fixture (e.g. remodel) every 20 years. Compared to incandescent bulbs, you're talking about CFL or LED saving $10-$12 per bulb per year.

With 40-50 bulbs (60W-100W each) throughout the house, that's easily $200/yr and potentially as much as $600+/yr (extreme example). That's enough to take a decent vacation every 5-10 years (and still replace the fixtures when you want to update the look of the house).


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Your distinction about power cost is irrelevant. In all our products using power we don't stop and think to ourselfs "what's it matter if I just throw away something that costs $50 because it used power".

You throw something away when it ceases to be useful or desirable, not based on some arbitrary concept of % cost. The same is true with non-LED fixtures now.


RE: Very sad day...
By gstrickler on 1/31/2009 7:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your distinction about power cost is irrelevant. In all our products using power we don't stop and think to ourselfs "what's it matter if I just throw away something that costs $50 because it used power".
Actually, some of us do. I have replaced CPUs with lower power versions just because the electricity savings over the next several years of use more than offset the cost of upgrading the current (over $50) CPU. I come out ahead in the long run. As I said in another post, I'm all for efficiency without compromises.

However, I did not say we "throw away something that costs $50 because it used power" or anything like that. I was responding to the previous poster making a flippant comment about throwing away a $50 fixture and keeping a $2.85 bulb.

First off, it's not likely to be a $2.85 bulb, it's likely to be $15 or more. Second, a "fixture" is likely to have 2-6 bulbs, so the actual cost of the bulbs is likely to be $30-$90 or more, which is similar to or higher than the $50 fixture. Even without including electricity, the bulbs are likely to be worth more than the fixture.

If you also figure in the energy cost savings, the bulbs are in fact far more valuable than the fixture. If the bulb has more than a trivial cost and it's not near the end of it's expected useful life, it would make perfect sense to dispose of a $50 fixture that is out of style and keep the bulbs.

I did not make that point clearly in my first 2 posts.

quote:
You throw something away when it ceases to be useful or desirable, not based on some arbitrary concept of % cost. The same is true with non-LED fixtures now.
Agreed. Another example of the original poster's comment being completely off base. Also, if the old item has any value, you put it in a garage sale or on ebay.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, whichever part has the power regulation circuit in it will need replaced long before the LEDs do, so it's a bit confusing why they claim 60 years. Further, manufacturers will drive them with as much current as they possibly can to reduce their production costs, greatly shortening the lifespan.

Current LEDs were supposed to last dozens of thousands of hours. I've built quite a few things over the years, staying within the spec'd current, and find they don't actually last anywhere near that long before being a small fraction of the original light output.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, that in the most cost effective manufacturing they would make a light panel that has the individual LEDs integrated instead of in a bulb form factor.

In fact, if you care to you can build your own right now, there's always going to be something better down the road so it is puzzling why this news article was written up as if it's something significant. At the very most all the "news" was is that they might have (no specs to confirm this?) increased LED efficiency slightly relative to other contemporary LED designs.

One thing the article and linked info doesn't seem to make clear is that the LED "bulb" pictured will by itself not be bright enough to light up much of anything, a lightbulb sized and shaped object would have to have these low powered LEDs entirely covering it to get close to the light output of a regular bulb.


RE: Very sad day...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2009 10:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is puzzling why this news article was written up as if it's something significant. At the very most all the "news" was is that they might have (no specs to confirm this?) increased LED efficiency slightly relative to other contemporary LED designs.
The advance here is a ten-fold reduction in fabrication costs for these LEDs. That's a rather newsworthy event, in my opinion.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 2/1/2009 8:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's true, though I was thinking that IF they lowered cost while keeping the other advances in the field, overcoming the droop problems with past LEDs. If they didn't do that, actually even if they did, they will have to scale the die size to increase light density. Current automobiles, traffic lights, and the more desirable form-factors for bulbs in general need higher powered LEDs than these appear to be unless everyone will be content to suddenly live with less light.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 2/1/2009 10:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
The ten-fold reduction is questionable. Suppose a bulb can now cost $3, and $1.50 of that is the cost of the LEDs. It is doubtful that a manufacturer producing volume could fit $15 worth of current/legacy LEDs (under 5 cents each in volume) onto the area a bulb provides (assuming something reasonably capable of fitting in a standard enclosure and lamp, otherwise bulbs are a fairly useless format compared to integrated lighting panels w/o separate fixtures).

The whole thing reads more like marketing in lieu of advances. There was prior work by others with silicon substrates.
http://compoundsemiconductor.net/blog/2008/07/zrnc...


RE: Very sad day...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/1/2009 10:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "It is doubtful that a manufacturer producing volume could fit $15 worth of current/legacy LEDs (under 5 cents each in volume) onto the area a bulb provides"

Eh? You can't get super-high output (>20K mcd) white LEDs for anywhere near 5c, no matter how large a volume you buy in. They're easily over a dollar.


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 2/2/2009 1:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you buy your parts, Radio Shack? Remember, you will not get any idea of volume pricing discounts looking at per-LED pricing to consumers. We're talking about a bulb manufacturer buying millions at a time, contractually.

Based upon that kind of pricing you assume, it would be impossible to build anything we buy that is reasonably electronic and sell at the price paid.

These LED are not high powered. Compare to what you'd find on ebay for example, granted some are grossly overrated but not all.

Remember, the package type dictates max current. Even if voltage droop is greatly reduced, heatsinking isn't magical, it is a limit when talking about these leaded encapsulated LEDs (which happen to have great efficiency because they are driven at such low current, voltage droop improvements are not infinitely extended to the current levels needed for most reasonable uses).


RE: Very sad day...
By Cobra Commander on 1/29/2009 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was floored just last night on something I never imagined: My 75 year old uncle informed me of the age-old "when one bulb dies they all do" theory to basic electronic circuits as they pertain to christmas tree lights. We've all heard that (I hope) before. But what I failed to understand was bulbs never lasted a single Christmas season, so bulbs were failing "all the time" and checking for the bad bulb was a regular occurance - while the lights were ON THE TREE.

Holy crap that had to suck.

Of course they had a type of crimper/plier which acted as a temporary shunt to test with but still...


RE: Very sad day...
By phxfreddy on 1/30/2009 10:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
What was your point Emily Lutella?


RE: Very sad day...
By Fritzr on 1/30/2009 11:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the way the string was designed. Good Christmas tree lights were wired in parallel. One bulb dies and the rest remain lit. Almost all screw in bulb strings were this type. The cheap 'mini-light' strings were wired in series...each socket was a jumper. Pull the bulb or have a bulb die and the whole string goes dark.

The testing tool is simple ... a bobby pin with insulation over it so you can plug it in safely or more common a spare bulb that is known to be good.

Multicolored LEDs will make great Christmas tree lights ... the bulbs will live longer than the wiring or their owners :)


RE: Very sad day...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually not, typical LED Christmas lights may outlast incandescents but are subject to power surges and overdriven designs to make them brighter, thus in reality they don't last nearly as long as the hypothetical ideal lifespan they'd have at lower current.

Same thing different day, deceptive marketing that doesn't mention the crucial factors upon which the specs are claimed. Nobody, I mean no lighting design I've seen has ran the LEDs at low enough power that they'll have 50% brightness after 10 years. Of course I mean 10 years of regular use, with Christmas lights it may be possible to get multiple times that since they are a seasonal-use product, although the wiring may rot or be damaged long before then. All too often people hear the lifespan of the longest lived part in something and totally ignore that the other failure mechanisms will make that part's lifespan irrelevant.

It wouldn't be safe to use 30 year old Christmas tree lights even if the bulbs never burn out.


how many does it take?
By kattanna on 1/29/2009 4:06:17 PM , Rating: 5
how many of those LED's does it take to match the light output of a standard 100 watt bulb i wonder?




RE: how many does it take?
By TheDoc9 on 1/29/2009 4:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but what color of light do they produce. If it's blinding super white led then no thanks.


RE: how many does it take?
By mezman on 1/29/2009 4:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Lets hope they produce light at 6500K. Or can at least be made to.


RE: how many does it take?
By lennylim on 1/29/2009 8:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
I have a hard time finding circular fluorescents that produce 6500K. Americans seem to prefer 3000K, perhaps because it is closer to the color of tungsten filament lights.


RE: how many does it take?
By Darkskypoet on 1/29/2009 9:39:46 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed... I much prefer light at over 6000k, the 'soft white' bulbs are just horrid. Hopefully these LEDs can match the color temperature I am looking for, it's always easy to drop the temp with fixtures, far less easy to pull the trick in reverse... Sigh , dull yellowish light... Yuck.


RE: how many does it take?
By Solandri on 1/30/2009 2:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
5500K is the U.S. standard for daylight (sunlight). 6500K is the European standard (sunlight + blue skies).

The 3000-3500K of "soft white" bulbs does come from tungsten bulbs. However, that color is actually preferred for portrait photography. It gives the skin a golden glow and helps hide blemishes. So while I think it's a terrible light for an office or a den or even a kitchen, it does kinda make sense for bedrooms and living rooms.


RE: how many does it take?
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 7:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it does kinda make sense for bedrooms and living rooms


increase the sexiness.


RE: how many does it take?
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
They can make LEDs at any color temp you want, though the further from blue it is, the less efficient it is.


RE: how many does it take?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2009 11:19:33 PM , Rating: 1
Eh? You can only make an LED to emit at whatever specific (monochromatic) frequency of light its material has a band gap of.

To make a "white" LED, you have three basic methods. Either use multiple monochromatic (RGB) LEDs, mixing together their light proportionally to get the desired color temperature, use a ZnSe LED that emits blue and yellow simultaneously, getting the desired color temperature by varying the base/action region ratio, or use a single blue LED combined with a phosphor.

There are several factors in how efficient a white LED is, but the largest isn't the actual color temperature, but rather the color rendering index -- a rough measure of how 'broad' the spectrum is. You can get a very broad spectrum (and thus a very high quality white light) by using 4 or more monochromatic LEDs, or by using multiple phosphors, each with its own emittance peak, but that reduces luminous efficacy.