backtop


Print 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.


RE: how many does it take?
By mindless1 on 2/1/2009 8:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
I am speaking of actual LEDs, and color temperature reasonably white since that was what others were observing when talking about color temp.

The primary factor for color temp is how much phosphor or other coatings are used to convert the bluer hue to something more desirable as these are not 100% efficient. Typical high efficiency LEDs do not use multiple LEDs, except in devices that may need to cycle between different colors like display panels.


RE: how many does it take?
By superflex on 1/30/2009 11:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
1000bulbs.com

Thay have bulbs in almost all kelvin ranges from 2800 to 6500.


RE: how many does it take?
By InfantryRocks on 1/29/2009 5:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was wondering.


RE: how many does it take?
By svenkesd on 1/29/2009 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
I believe most other high brightness white LEDs are a blue or ultraviolet light source in combination with a phosphor. The phosphor determines the color temperature of the white light, so the LED can probably emit anywhere from a very yellow light to a cool blue.


RE: how many does it take?
By icanhascpu on 2/4/2009 11:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the 21st century where we have invented things called 'filters'.

It would be optimal for them to emit pure white light, as it is very easy to put a filter coating on the housing to give you whatever intensity of whatever color you want and have a base of pure white light to work from.

It would be like LCDs having backlighing that's warm yellow like the afternoon sun. The display would look horrible, because no matter what you do to correct the color, it would always have that handicap and brightness and purity would suffer and the clarity of the image would diminish. .


RE: how many does it take?
By Davelo on 1/30/2009 12:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that was my first question. The article starts out talking about a new light bulb and mentions $2.85 but then I read the fine print and it is $2.85 for only one LED. Who would buy a $50 light bulb? You could never recoup the cost in electric bill savings.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 7:20:40 AM , Rating: 2
Electric Bill + A/C in summer (Less heat) + Lifespan = Net Cost Savings.


RE: how many does it take?
By Spivonious on 1/30/2009 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
They also say that one LED generates the same light as a CFL bulb, so one LED is all you'd need.


RE: how many does it take?
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
The article is misleading in not clarifying that the encapsulated LED in the picture does not produce even 1/40th as much light as a CFL bulb (probably much less than even that), particularly if ran at low enough power level that it would last 60 years. Generally that package type is good for up to 500mW-1W, IF the product is carefully designed so the leads are short enough and the PCB copper ample enough to 'sink away a fair amount of heat.

Otherwise you have to use a different package, the die would have to be mounted on it's own heatsink or a metal slug on the back that is soldered directly to copper on the PCB (like medium to higher powered surface mount transistors are).


RE: how many does it take?
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
See the second picture, those LEDs are lit! Does it look blindingly bright?


RE: how many does it take?
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
They couldn't possibly be correct that it's $2.85 for one of those LEDs, because it will take more than 200 of them to produce enough light to meet customer expectations for direct lightbulb replacement purposes.

What they probably mean is the individual LEDs cost little more than 1 cent each (if that), so the total cost of all of them per bulb amounts to $2.85 (before adding further cost for the regulation, physical structure of the bulb, etc).

As for buying a $50 light bulb, over the life of a home yes you will recoup the costs with few if any bulb replacements and lower electric bills anywhere you run them for long periods.


$2.86 for the LED
By A Stoner on 1/29/2009 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 4
These things do not work on 110V or 220V and probably do not work with AC even if they did handle that kind of voltage. So, you loose some electricity converting your house energy into DC low voltage energy for the LED. If they are not made to replace standard housing bulbs, then you have the cost and the energy to make, transport and install new lighting fixtures. If they are replacement for standard bulbs then you have the added waste of materials to bulk it up to size. Because the light is coming from such a tiny point, they will likely need to be housed in a difuser or will be blinding to look directly at or even a close periferal view. While in ten years the cost will have been made up for all of these with the energy savings and the lower replacements, it will not be emmediate. If it is superior light to incandescent, I like them. But if it is inferior light, then I say keep the incandescents! Epeliptic seisures is one symptom from flourescent, another is migraine headaches.




RE: $2.86 for the LED
By svenkesd on 1/29/2009 4:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
The electronics to convert the voltage can be relatively efficient. Especially when compared to a 5% efficient incandescent or even a 40% efficient flourescent.

I assume the electronics would be part of the "light bulb" as a whole and will drive the total cost of a retail bulb up more than $2.86.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
A good design could allow roughly 93% efficiency, but expect lower than that to make products cheaper. The electronics must be part of the bulb if it's meant to be used in a standard bulb socket, and may drive costs up by a dollar or two.

However, remember that with that "40% CFL", it is already taking into account the inefficiencies of it's power supply as a finished product, while in this case the claims are most likely just for the bare LED as they are not giving specs on an integrated product.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By psychobriggsy on 1/29/2009 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
All the LED bulbs I've seen for sale work from 85V to 260V, they plug into the standard light fitting. They are even meant to work with decent dimmers, although the electrics to change the number of lit LEDs (LED bulbs use 20, 50, or more LEDs) based upon the current supplied aren't that complex.

Right now they're relatively expensive. I presume that this could make them significantly cheaper.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By menace on 1/30/2009 10:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
The picture caption says $2.86 is for a single LED. The article fails to mention the lumen output of the LED or how many LEDs would be required to make light equivalent to a 60W bulb or 100W bulb. Let's guess tha it would take a matrix of at least a 12-20 for 60-100W range putting the LED cost at $32-$58 alone. Likely royalty costs on the LED would drive this cost up at least 20% so now $39-$70. Add in $5-$10 for cost of electronics and standard bulb package puts the cost range at $44-$80. Still might be well worth replacing well used lights but not worth replacing a seldom used closet or basement light.

My buddy bought some current tech LED bulbs to replace some 40W exterior lights. Each bulb uses only 1.5 W, have a matrix of at least 20 LEDs. Despite being advertised putting out 40W equivalent he says they seem noticably dimmer than the incandescent bulbs they replaced. They only cost like $5 each. Cheap but the quality of light is not interior quality. For him it was good enough for theft deterrence and allows him to keep his lighting going all night rather than having a timer turn them off at midnight yet still save money.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By menace on 1/30/2009 10:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
On re-reading the article it does imply a single LED has similar output to a fluorescent. So I'm guessing perhaps 15W equivalent so it would take 6-8 per 100W replacement. That would bring likely retail cost down to $25-$40 range.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By menace on 1/30/2009 10:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure why I pulled 15W out of my .... probably more like 30-40W so 3 LEDs for 100W equiv. That puts it in the $15 range. Need to get a second cup of coffee.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of what the article implies, a single LED won't even be enough for a reading light. If it's 4X as efficient as a 14W CFL, meaning same light comes from 14/4 = 3.5W, it'd blow out in a fraction of a second at that power level.


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2009 10:45:36 AM , Rating: 4
The caption is misleading. The actual advance is an order-of-magnitude reduction in production costs, which should enable the cost of a bulb (which contains several LEDs) to drop to around £2 (which Jason converted to $2.85).


RE: $2.86 for the LED
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 5:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
The light is not coming from a tiny point, that is only one LED but a bulb product will have to have dozens of them if not more. It also has a wide angle focus which will help, but a diffuser may still be needed to come near the light quality we've come to expect with incandescents.


Can't remember what show it was...
By Motoman on 1/29/2009 4:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
...but I remember watching something about a firehouse in CA I think that has a lightbulb still in use that's over 100 years old. Mainly because it's been running at a ridiculously low voltage.

Anyway, if these things truly last for 100k hours, it would mean that the industry has to shift completely from a high-volume, low-margin model to a low-volume, high-margin model. Right now, light bulbs are basically expected to burn out all the time...and you don't really think much about ponying up another buck to replace it. And you buy them all the time, and the factories make them all the time.

With these things, let's say they only last 50 years (gasp). That's still longer than I am likely to be alive, based on current standards and the fact that I'm well into my 30s. So once I outfit my house with them...that'll be it. Essentially like, say, the doors between rooms. Pretty much your buy those doors when you build the house, and barring any accidents or wanton redecorating, you never buy new ones. Right now, the light bulb industry makes relatively little margin on each unit - but they sell ridiculously large volumes of them...because they don't last long. Adopting this stuff, they'd have to pump the margin WAY up...forget about a $2.85 bulb. It'll be $15, or more...because the manufacturer knows they'll not be selling you any more after you've bought all that you need...and the volume is therefore profoundly lower than what they're used to.

Still...I'd pay $15 a bulb if it truly meant never having to replace it again in my lifetime. Not to mention energy savings and whatnot.




By Keeir on 1/29/2009 4:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still...I'd pay $15 a bulb if it truly meant never having to replace it again in my lifetime. Not to mention energy savings and whatnot.


I'd pay alot more just for the savings in time... even if its only 10 minutes to replace a bulb on average (get the bulb, get the ladder, dispose of the old bulb) going from a 2-5 year replacement program to a 50 year replacement program would save me 1.5 hours to 4 hours per bulb... well worth the expense of 20-30 dollars or more depending on light quality


RE: Can't remember what show it was...
By theaerokid on 1/29/2009 4:51:01 PM , Rating: 3
You got that right, except the mass adoption rush at the very beginning could help drive the volume up; at least for the first 5 years. Or maybe start off slow, hit a volume peak in a few years and then decline.

Not only that. They may have different voltage requirements as well. Oh, and what about if they decide that your standard screw-in socket is not feasible, or needed and they re-design the socket for whatever reason. Does this mean we would have to re-wire our homes?

The real cost and infrastructure impact will be trickier to assess. Let's wait for the details before we dance on the streets with wallets in hand.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/30/2009 7:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
They would use the same socket. I have a few LED lightbulbs in floor lamps right now and they utilize the same sockets as any other bulb.


RE: Can't remember what show it was...
By joex444 on 1/29/2009 10:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that was from Mythbusters when they tried to test the lifetime of various bulbs (LEDs were the only ones they couldn't make die).

And the bulb has lasted so long because when it was made the filament was very thick, and it has never been turned off. The thick filament is of course why the bulb is so dim.


By kmmatney on 1/30/2009 2:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly right about the thick filament - it basically has a filament about as thick as a toasters, and put out about t6he same amount of light.


Great....
By Aloonatic on 1/29/2009 4:19:43 PM , Rating: 1
.... So I can't buy normal light bulbs (light bulb classic) and I was good and bought some energy efficient bulbs a couple of years back, but they were rubbish so I've just replaced those with more modern efficient bulbs that are brighter and light up faster and now I will soon be being urged to replacing those too.

These long life bulbs are great but how many are being replaced before they die of natural causes but because they have been superseded by a better, faster, cleaner and greener new kid on the block?

I'm throwing away bulbs that are really not that bad and still have many many years left in them. When will this madness end?




RE: Great....
By nowayout99 on 1/29/2009 4:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
They pay for themselves in a matter of months, and so would these. You'd spend more by staying where you are and not updating. So it's still a win, except for the inconvenience of swapping them out.


RE: Great....
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 10:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They pay for themselves in a matter of months, and so would these
If he's already using an older-generation CFL, then a new bulb is only going to save a few additional watts. Using the standard 4-hr/day duty cycle, you might save about 50 cents a year by upgrading.


RE: Great....
By Aloonatic on 1/30/2009 3:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
What about the light bulbs that I have just replaced, who's replacements I will probably be replacing with LED lights soon too? They still work? What was the point in them and their wasted lives?

How do big stockpiles of light bulbs that still work help the environment? When it comes to light bulbs the monetary factors are not really that critical, a few £s may be saved which is nice of course, but this is just a massive waste of resources and energy.

Inconvenience and the blatant waste is my problem really. It doesn't seem to be helping anyone, other than bulb manufacturers and those who want to look green.

Should we not have just waited for LED lighting in the first place? Rather than being forced down this route buy people who just want to be seen as being green to appease their own consciences or because it went over well at the last New Labour focus group.

I know it's easy to say now, but really, LED lights have been around for a while.

If you liked this rant you may wish to read my extended rant along the same lines including comparisons of energy efficient light bulbs to hybrid/electric cars and another rant about taxes on cars that produce more CO2 bellow, enjoy.


RE: Great....
By lennylim on 1/29/2009 8:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
If they're "not that bad" why are you throwing them out?


RE: Great....
By Aloonatic on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Great....
By MrPoletski on 1/30/2009 4:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
when you sell your old, but still working lightbulbs instead of throwing them in the bin?


Educating consumers
By Jansen (blog) on 1/29/2009 4:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
If goes into production, the retail cost might be around $10 due to markups.

Consumer education about cost versus benefit will be necessary.




RE: Educating consumers
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2009 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 1
Good point.

Also this begs the question, if these bulbs last 60 years, what company is going to want to invest in them.


RE: Educating consumers
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 4:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
and if its $2.85 for the bulb, how much for the lamp that can actually use the new bulbs?

$1,000? Or will the lamp become the disposable element?


RE: Educating consumers
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 7:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what I was thinking. What company is going to want to manufacture a product they only sell once every 60 years? Doesn't make a lot of business sense unless you charge out the butt for them.


RE: Educating consumers
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2009 9:45:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, pretty much what I was thinking.

There are light bulbs you can buy NOW that last a lot longer. They are 130 volt bulbs. Go into a Lowes or Home Depot, though, and they are nowhere to be found.

It's a sad but true reality. Products that are built extremely well don't equal extreme profits.


RE: Educating consumers
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 4:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are light bulbs you can buy NOW that last a lot longer. They are 130 volt bulbs. Go into a Lowes or Home Depot, though, and they are nowhere to be found.
Take a look again, my local Lowe's has 130V incandescent bulbs. Home Depot and Lowe's both have a large selection of CFL bulbs with 6,000-14,000hr life-span (3x-7x a long life incandescent). Longer life bulbs are readily available now, if these make it to market at a competitive price, they'll be easily available also.

BTW, 130V incandescent bulbs are a questionably investment. Yes, they last longer than 120V bulbs, but with about 10% lower efficiency than 120V bulbs, so they cost you a lot more in electricity than you save in bulbs. In a commercial environment, they may make sense because of the lower labor costs from changing bulbs less often.

Whereever you can use CFL instead of incandescent bulbs, those are even more cost effective, leaving 130V incandescent bulbs useful only where the CFL or LED aren't suitable and the time/labor savings outweighs the higher electricity costs.


By NightAngel1981 on 1/29/2009 8:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
and why we dont use them instead. Im not very in the know about electricity.

I just had an electrician one time tell me to replace the bulbs in my house with electrician supply stores 124 volt bulbs and they would never need replaced again. He said that the reason current filaments break is because of voltage spikes turning on lights and that the use of higher voltage bulbs eliminates that problem.

He also told a story about bulbs being made this way to begin with and companies not selling enough so they stopped making them and made the one that break more often so they could earn more profit.

Anyone know about this, cant really get a good answer from google.




By Alexstarfire on 1/29/2009 9:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the store was just trying to make you buy some more stuff.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 9:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not exactly sure what your electrician is referring to, but there's a few basic principles that apply to all incandescent bulbs. Efficiency is related to filament temperature, lifespan is inversely related. So it's not really hard to a bulb with an incredibly long lifespan-- but you pay for it in lower efficiency. In fact, if you look at the "long life" bulbs for sale anywhere, you'll see a lower lumen output despite the same bulb wattage.


By illuvatar81 on 1/29/2009 9:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well i found some links that cite 130 volt bulbs. These are supposed to last longer reference the voltage spikes that run up to 120-126 during switching a light on.

Apparently they say to buy a higher wattage because as you mentioned they produce less light. But they last much longer.


By MrTeal on 1/29/2009 11:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
A light bulb is essentially resistive, so there shouldn't be any real voltage spikes that cause it to fry. If anything (and take this with a grain of salt, I've never researched or measured it) given it's shape I'd guess it might be slightly inductive. As such, you might get a slight current rise, but would be more prone to voltage spikes at turn-off.

What kills bulbs isn't voltage spikes, it's the sudden thermal cycling from room temperature to 3000k. Try taking a 500F glass dish and pouring cold water over it*, you'll get the same effect.

*Note: Don't actually do this. I'm not responsible for your lacerations.


But will they work with dimmers?
By PAPutzback on 1/29/2009 4:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
That is the reason holding me back from going CFL and their shape is pretty hideous.

I am looking into home autoamtion in the future and dimmable light bulbs are key to scenes.




By Alexstarfire on 1/29/2009 8:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
The CFLs that I had worked perfectly fine with my dimmer.


By MadMan007 on 1/30/2009 2:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
If you've got a bunch of bare bulbs in your place such that the shape of the bulb bothers you maybe you should have other priorities, such as lampshades or fixture covers. Or just go hog wild and get them all at the same time!


By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 5:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Some CFLs are compatible with dimmers, most are not. Read the package, if it's compatible with a dimmer, it will say (and most will say that they are NOT compatible). If it doesn't say, assume it's NOT compatible with dimmers.

If you want lighting similar to incandescent, go with a 2800K-3300K CFL, those are closest to warm-white & soft-white incandescent bulbs. I like the Phillips/Sylvania CFLs, which always list the color temperature (many other brands don't, so I won't buy those). Until 15 years ago, I hated the color of most fluorescent lighting, but I've been very happy with the Phillips/Sylvania (and a couple others I've tried) bulbs for over 15 years now. A friend of mine was a Phillips sales rep for a couple years back then and introduced me to fluorescent lighting that I liked, since then, I've been shifting much of my lighting to CFL, with some halogen and regular incandescent depending upon usage.

I hated the "daylight" CFL bulbs I've tried, didn't look at all like daylight, absolutely hideous. But that was before I knew to check the color temperature so I don't know if it was 5500K, 6000K, 6500K, etc. I just know it sucked and I returned it.

I'm still skeptical of LED lighting, haven't seen many that I like, but I have seen a few with potential. Maybe this will be a suitable replacement for incandescent and/or CFL. I'm all for efficiency without (or with very minor) compromises.

Here's a site with info on bulb selection (not specific to any type of lighting).
http://www.1000bulbs.com/pg/Color-Measurement/


Will never get released!
By androticus on 1/29/2009 6:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
This product will never be released! It will be suppressed by the same forces that suppressed the 100 MPG car, the ever-sharp razor blade, and similar revolutionary technologies.




RE: Will never get released!
By joex444 on 1/29/2009 10:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well, compared to the other items you listed this one (seeing that it actually exists) may fare better.


RE: Will never get released!
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2009 7:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
Helmet still on straight?


100,000 hours... 60 years...
By bmheiar on 1/29/2009 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new bulbs last 100,000 hours..
60 years...

Is that still based on the average use of 4 hours a day for 60 years?

Because I get 87600 hours.




RE: 100,000 hours... 60 years...
By joex444 on 1/29/2009 10:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Under the 4 hour a day convention, it would come out to 68 years. This isn't a nice round number to tout around, and 70 is lying. 65 years is nice and even (get it... 65), but could be cutting it close since these are clearly projected values. So, call it 60 years.

Of course you could just work the other way and say that 100,000 hours @ 60 years is 4.5 hours/day.


Redundant
By Smilin on 1/29/2009 4:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is our belief they will render current energy-efficiency bulbs redundant.


redundant?

So if you have an old bulb, then buy one of these new bulbs you'll have two.

Makes sense. Can't you make your old bulb redundant by buying another old bulb as well though?




RE: Redundant
By MadMan007 on 1/30/2009 2:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
They should have said obsolete not redundant.


By Doormat on 1/29/2009 5:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Where domestic energy use is all energy (fuel, electricity, natural gas, etc). Residential energy use is 21% of that amount. Lighting is about 11% of that amount (2.3%). So a 12x efficiency increase would reduce that 2.3% to 0.2%.

So if this were to come to fruition as stated in the DT article, people could see their power bill come down a substantial amount (15-20%) and reduce their home's energy consumption by about 10%.




By inperfectdarkness on 1/29/2009 8:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
don't forget that lighting figures DON'T include appliances. your refrigerator, microwave, stove and even dryer can have lights in them. eventually appliance manufacturers will switch too; driving energy costs down even further.

additionally...this could mean even greater things for flashlights. that mag-lite with 4 d-cells could theoretically power these new led's for literally a MONTH without shutting off (i'm using a bit of descriptive fantasy here).


Spectral Output?
By buckeyeman on 1/30/2009 6:37:12 AM , Rating: 4
Do these put out a soft comforting light? Or is it a bright blast of glaring light that one can't wait to get away from? Governments seem so quick to jump on the "green" bandwagon by pushing for the elimination of lamps that provide comfortable light, such as the GE Reveal incandescent bulb. Those compact flourescents ( I call them algore bulbs), IMHO, do not put out a comfortable spectrum, so I use them in areas where it doesn't matter, like garage overheads, closets. In living areas, I prefer the Reveal output.

Did the designers of these lamps run focus groups to determine if people actually like the light output these devices generate?




Budget Reduction
By dclapps on 1/29/2009 4:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Do those 20 -> 5 % figures include the cost of switching out and installing the bulbs?




RE: Budget Reduction
By joex444 on 1/29/2009 10:10:43 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you should go back and see what 20% and 5% refer to. It said that the use of LED bulbs over current bulbs would reduce the use of electricity for the purposes of lighting from 20% to 5%. It is a power usage figure relative to the UK's entire consumption of electricity. If you still don't get it, then hit that little X in the corner of the screen and go play with the other kids.


Efficiency
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 5:18:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The new design triples fluorescent bulb efficiency
I think this should read triples CFL efficiency. Actual flourescent tubes tend to be almost twice as efficient as your average CFL.

Even this though I have to take with a grain of salt. I didn't find the original announcement by Humphreys, but what I did find suggested a major breakthrough in fabrication costs. It didn't say anything about increasing efficiency. If anyone can find actual figures on luminous efficacy, please post them here.




RE: Efficiency
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 6:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
It almost certainly does not have better efficiency than contemporary designs, or it would have been mentioned. However, if the cost is reduced enough there is less incentive to overdrive the LEDs which - even with droop-reduction breakthroughs - should tend to maximize the efficiency so long as they can fit enough LEDs on the bulb to retain sufficient light.


By hcetyliad on 1/30/2009 3:21:02 AM , Rating: 1
The LED may last 60 years but will the glass part of it also last just as long? Do we know what 60 years of heat, cold, air pressure, pollution, and humans do to this kind of glass? What about the wire?

If the whole thing does last that long, you will be able to say "that red traffic light also got my great grandfather a ticket and its still going strong".




By gstrickler on 1/31/2009 5:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we know what 60 years of heat, cold, air pressure, pollution, and humans do to this kind of glass? What about the wire?
Yes, we've been using glass and wire in places where it's exposed to the weather, etc. for over 100 years, we know quite well how it will age.

We don't have such long-term information on how the silicon and other semiconductor materials will last, but we do have 30+ years.


Bizarre Blog
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 3
All of the PR in this blog is very strange, all that should be mentioned is that LED production costs dramatically decreased.

LED costs had already been going down year after year along with output, and efficiency rising, so mentioning a product or cost is a bit of a leap.

Instead, it would've been nice to read about GaN layering allowing for a process on silicon instead of sapphire.




By mxnerd on 1/29/2009 5:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
If it's true.

So which light company is going to produce it and kill its own business?




Not quite correct...
By LRonaldHubbs on 1/29/2009 8:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
New research has finally helped to eliminate the LED droop typically associated with the higher currents needed to provide greater efficiencies .

I believe you meant to say brightness, not efficiency. The reason for increasing the electrical current is to increase light output, but the consequence of doing so is that efficiency decreases. Solving the problem of droop improves efficiency, thus decreasing electrical loss and operating temperature and increasing both the brightness and life span of the device.




But will they be nice to use.
By Cardo Cardo on 1/30/2009 4:45:43 AM , Rating: 2
Great all the "changing light bulb" jokes but on a serious point. What will be the quality of the light emitted? My wife suffers from photo-phobia which often leads to severe migraines and other people suffer from other forms of light sensitivity. We have had to remove all the current types of low energy bulbs because the light produced proves uncomfortable for her. We tend to use the "soft light" style of bulb where possible.

I also understand that, as they get older, people tend to find the light from current types of energy saving bulbs to make reading more difficult than conventional bulbs.

Can someone feedback on these issues who knows something about them?




Per...?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/30/2009 11:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Officials say the new design could cut 40 million tons of carbon emissions in Britain alone.


Per second, hour, day, month, year, life of the bulb, one time?

(Before you jump on me, these guys get paid by the post, so I am sure they throw this stuff in to generate such threads.)




By chuckmillersys on 1/30/2009 2:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
I purchased a zetalux from http://www.earthled.com, product is great and at only $49 it was a decent value but even at that cost and the savings achieved by the LED in terms of energy reduction the payback is still 2 years at .10 cents per kilowatt hour.

Green nuts like me though have been snapping these up, no CFLs for me!




15 years
By deeznuts on 1/30/2009 3:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
What flourescent bulb lasts 15 years?




CIA in-house advertisement
By Kyanzes on 1/30/2009 5:46:11 AM , Rating: 1
(guy in a black suit and sunglasses)

"Lasts longer, shines brighter... for a more efficient interrogation..."

Shriek from the background

"I want to confess"

Black suit grinning, shows two thumbs up.




no approved by Al Gore
By Dreifort on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: no approved by Al Gore
By CurtOien on 1/29/2009 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 3
Why does this have to become political?


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By Jeffk464 on 1/30/2009 12:32:46 AM , Rating: 1
I know, I think its funny that these Rush ditto heads get upset with anything that saves energy, even if there is no downside.


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By phxfreddy on 1/30/2009 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 1
because the libs will be so irrational about this.

Global warming....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: no approved by Al Gore
By gstrickler on 1/30/2009 11:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Because Al Gore invented the internet!

Ok, I know that's a mis-quote, but it's just too easy to make fun of Al Gore (and it's fun).


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By probedb on 1/29/2009 4:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
What a stupid comment.

Does Al Gore have to approve all green energy saving products then? I think not.


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By bobny1 on 1/29/2009 9:34:19 PM , Rating: 1
Obama is going to include bulb replacement credit in the stimulus package. LOL


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By Jeffk464 on 1/30/2009 12:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think it would be pretty tough to be up on every single new green technology. Al Gore is just a spokesman, he is not a technical type, except maybe for inventing the internet :).


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By phxfreddy on 1/30/2009 10:17:55 AM , Rating: 1
Yes Rabbi Gore must bless all light bulbs for them to be kosher. Each blessing costs a dime. Where do you think that 100 million of his came from???


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By joex444 on 1/29/2009 10:16:40 PM , Rating: 1
I'm going to go off on a tangent, then backstab your post.

I am an atheist. Suppose that someone, who is religious, tells me that Atheism is actually just a religion of its own. How could this be? Well, I say that atheism is the non belief in God (all of them). The religious person, however, says that atheism is the belief that god does not exist. That is, that atheism is itself a religion because of the positive belief in the non-existence of God. This is clearly hogwash; an atheist does not wake up thankful there is no god. An atheist simply wakes up without thinking of god.

Now, did "Al Gore not approve" these LEDs by never mentioning them or by positively saying he does not approve them. It is one thing to have no formal opinion on the matter (atheism), and another to publicly denounce LED light bulbs (religion). Hey, look what I did there... (think Coprenicus).


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By Hulk on 1/29/2009 11:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ha! I just want to be in a store here in the US when they stop stocking incandescent bulbs. I can't wait to see all of the "voting liberals" try and live their vote!

Yes, I'm a conservative and I use all "twisty" bulbs in my house. I don't vote my beliefs I live them.


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By superflex on 1/30/2009 12:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.
My liberal brother in Santa Barbara (go figure) just put an addition on his house adding about 900 s.f. for a grand total of $680,000. Granted, some of the cost was for the foundation which was expensive for seismic purposes (grade beams on piles), but approximately 15% of the total cost was for the USGBC green building moniker, which get's him nothing other than a toilet which cant handle a turd bigger than a golf ball. Good thing he's a vegan so he poops rabbit turds.
When I took the family out to visit last summer, my daughter and son (9 and 11) both clogged his toilet. He blamed it on their meat diet.
In his so-called green house, he uses 100% edison type bulbs. He said he doesn't like the color of CFLs, the lag in start up brightness and doesn't want to burden the environment with all the mercury. He's also a fifties freak, so everything has to be retro.
I swear mom dropped him on his head.


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By superflex on 1/30/2009 12:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
He also lobbied on Capitol Hill for 4 years before moving to SB, so I'm sure that helped implement his retardation.


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By Cardo Cardo on 1/30/2009 4:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well said!!


RE: no approved by Al Gore
By mindless1 on 1/31/2009 6:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
So an atheist who is not putting any thought into whether there is a god, puts forth an effort to go off on a tangent to discuss it?

Your actions contradict your claim. That may not make it a religion per se, but it does tend to be the same type of classification for which the very term exists and to classify yourself as atheist does require active thought, not passive lack thereof.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki