backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by Baz P.. on Mar 4 at 12:31 PM

GE hopes to initially offer 2x the energy efficiency of incandescents and ultimately 4x the energy efficiency

The incandescent light bulb has been coming under fire from two sides in recent times. On the one side, we have LED lighting looking to encroach into incandescent territory with brighter light and drastically reduced power consumption. On the other side, we have seen that fluorescent technology is being embraced increasingly by consumers.

General Electric (GE) hopes to fight off its rivals with a reinvigorated incandescent technology. GE's Consumer & Industrial’s Lighting division is developing an incandescent light that boosts the energy efficiency to near-fluorescent levels. GE also claims that the increased efficiency will not come at the expense of brightness, color and light quality.

"In addition to offering significant energy savings comparable to CFLs, the 21st century version of Edison’s bulb provides all the desirable benefits including light quality and instant-on convenience as incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs," said Kevin Nolan, VP of Technology for GE Consumer & Industrial. We and other lighting manufacturers have been aggressive in developing and marketing CFLs. But consumers want more options and we plan to respond to their needs and deliver environmental benefits, too."

The high efficiency incandescent (HEI) bulbs would replace current household incandescents ranging from 40 to 100 watts. The initial HEIs are expected to be at least two times as energy efficient as traditional incandescents. As the technology progresses, GE is targeting four times great efficiency which would make it comparable to fluorescents.



Comments     Threshold


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

Color . . .
By stromgald on 2/28/2007 1:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm worried about the color of these bulbs. Even though these incandescents are more efficient and cheaper than previous incandescents, they're still going to have a hard time encroaching on the efficiency and longevity of compact flourescents. I'm sure the competition will be good and will drive CFL makers to build CFLs even better and cheaper, but if incadescents of the future are going to suffer from the same problems as CFLs (bad for spot lighting, recessed lighting, etc.) . . . I'm not so sure I would buy these new incandescents.

According to this article GE claims that the light quality is the same, but looking at the pictures I've see online of these bulbs, they look a little bluish.




RE: Color . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 1:51:14 PM , Rating: 4
> "looking at the pictures I've see online of these bulbs, they look a little bluish..."

The picture in this article is a standard "reveal" incandescent, which GE intentionally adds blue to the glass, in order to produce a slightly more natural spectrum.

I don't know the details on these new incandescents...but the only way you can possibly increase the efficiency of that technology is to raise the operating temperature. That's going to have the effect of making the spectrum close to that of the sun, so I think quality of light would be the least of the worries. Cost and bulb longevity, now, may be real concerns.


RE: Color . . .
By theapparition on 2/28/2007 2:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the only way you can possibly increase the efficiency of that technology is to raise the operating temperature.

The color of the sun comes from its surface blackbody radiation temperature of ~6300K. Current incandesent light fixtures operate anywhere from 2000K-6500K. So we are already at/near the sun's spectrum. Increasing the temperature would shift the light "bluer" and while there is more energy at higher frequencies, I don't think that is the only way to increase efficiency. Modifying the filiment, such that it has higher resistance, yet still emits radiation in the standard range will reduce current demands, and hence improve efficiency.

On a side note, many applaud flourescent lighting but one thing has been absent from discussion. Flourescent lights affect the power factor of the incoming power, so do not actually conserve power. The higher lumens of CF's, however, require a smaller wattage bulb compared to incandescents.


RE: Color . . .
By Oregonian2 on 2/28/2007 3:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Correcting the power factor does not save any power, at best it only lowers the VA by lowering the VAR (VA Reactive). As long as one's power meters actually measure watts, there would be no difference. Power factor correction (even in PC's) really does the user no practical good at all, it's really only an issue with commercial concerns with large usage of poor PF devices (most of a home's usage would be things like electric stoves and water heaters or electric dryers where the power factor is "perfect"). Having poor PF's, in terms of power lost, only is in the wire-losses in the cabling where the I^2-R losses increase a little -- and that's more an issue for large currents and high percentage of total use. Losses in home wiring is small compared to the power used by the light bulb (in these examples) and the PF's increase in the wire losses is a tiny portion of that already small number.


RE: Color . . .
By Scorpion on 2/28/2007 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Gawd... You guys just gave me terrible flashbacks to my Energy Conversion and Power classes. Yikes! I never liked those classes much. Maybe it was the teacher, maybe the subject. I tried to forget it as quickly as possible, and as a result I only half understand what you are saying. :P


RE: Color . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 3:12:20 PM , Rating: 4
> "Current incandesent light fixtures operate anywhere from 2000K-6500K."

A standard tungsten incandescent bulb filament operates from 2000-3000K. There are specialized high temperature ones which operate above this range...but those are already more efficient. I imagine GE is simply trying to bring that technology down to the residential market.

> "I don't think that is the only way to increase efficiency.."

It is. Efficiency of a tungsten filament is a direct function of operating temperature, via Planck's law of blackbody radiation.


RE: Color . . .
By theapparition on 3/1/2007 7:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Efficiency of a tungsten filament is a direct function of operating temperature, via Planck's law of blackbody radiation

While I don't disagree, can you tell me which law of physics mandates using tungsten filaments, which was my original point. Research on other materials/alloys/composites may increase the efficiency while at the same temperature.


RE: Color . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2007 8:35:43 AM , Rating: 3
> "While I don't disagree, can you tell me which law of physics mandates using tungsten filaments..."

You miss the point. Other materials may indeed be more efficient. But if they are, it will be because they operate at a higher temperature.

If you're generating light through a hot element, then its spectrum will be determined by Planck's Law. And that spectrum determines its efficiency. Incandescents are inefficient because they radiate most of their spectrum into the infrared. The only way you change that is to increase the temperature.


RE: Color . . .
By lumbergeek on 2/28/2007 1:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
The picture is of a current GE Reveal bulb - they are deliberately bluish to cool down the colour temperature. Sorta like the blue-bulb headlights.

Regardless of that, it seems that the hope to get to incandescent efficiency, not that they are already there. Me, I'm all CFL at home now except for those lights that have different bulb bases. Next will be LED - they're not far off from ready to fly at the consumer level. They'll probably be there by the time GE can make their 4x efficiency bulbs.


RE: Color . . .
By stromgald on 2/28/2007 2:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
LEDs should be great in terms of efficiency and longevity, but they ones I've seen in person tend to be bluish and dim. They installed some in the recessed lighting in the elevators where I work. They're not as good as the old incandescents they had in the elevators previously. I'm not a big fan of those LED lamps, but the ones they put out for consumers will probably be better.


RE: Color . . .
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 2:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
There are low color temp white LED's being made now. Early ones used to be more blue (higher color temp). If you find an LED based bulb, make sure you check or ask about the color temp. Something around 4000k is considered warm and around 7000k is cold. You can find all sorts of LED based replacement bulbs on ebay, but they are more expensive than CFL's and have a way to go on the price for them to be competitive ($/watt). LED's are something like 90% efficient at producing visible light and last a long time. As production is ramping up around the world, we'll see more LED based bulbs on the market. Hopefully in a few years!


RE: Color . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 3:16:48 PM , Rating: 3
> "LED's are something like 90% efficient at producing visible light..."

Nowhere near. The best commercially available LEDs run about 75 lumens/watt. That's worse than the best fluoresecents (100+ l/w) and far worse than sodium lights, which can hit 200 l/w.

The theoretical maximum is ~680 l/w, so LEDs are still only around 10% efficient.

> "There are low color temp white LED's being made now..."

Yes, but they are more expensive and less efficient than the standard B+Y white LEDs.


RE: Color . . .
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 3:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're correct...I was thinking 90% efficient compared to incandescent bulbs. For example, a 6 watt led solid state bulb would produce about as much light as a 60 watt incandescent.


RE: Color . . .
By ZmaxDP on 2/28/2007 4:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
I still have to disagree Masher.

I've run tests that showed otherwise. I don't know what LED's you're using for the numbers, or what the lumen distribution was, but something is missing. We found LED's to be more efficient that the best CFL bulbs. I noticed you didn't say CFL but just Fluorescent, and that may be a differing factor.

I might also ask if you're using commercially available lamps for your numbers, as I've seen some pretty impressive lab results that just didn't pan out in real-world testing.


RE: Color . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 5:14:44 PM , Rating: 1
> "I've run tests that showed otherwise..."

As you said in the earlier thread. And-- as I said there-- my figures come from the actual published values of the manufacturers themselves.

> "I noticed you didn't say CFL but just Fluorescent, and that may be a differing factor"

It is. CFL bulbs average around 50 l/w, or less than half what standard fluorescent can do. Still, most white LEDs are below even CFL, though a few commercially available variants can best them.


RE: Color . . .
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 6:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
Nichia recently developed a white LED which produces 150 lumens/watt, making it as efficient as sodium lamps. Cree and Lumileds both claim to have produced LEDs around the same level of efficiency. I don't think either of these are being mass produced just yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are by the end of the year. All these LED manufacturers have made big jumps in the efficiency of their LEDs in just the last year alone.

The ~50 lumens/watt for CFL seems consistent with what I've seen online from the manufacturers. I think the long fluorescent tubes come in around 80 lumens/watt.


RE: Color . . .
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 6:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nichia recently developed a white LED which produces 150 lumens/watt..."

Right, but its not for sale yet...and its a B+Y LED, which means its color spectrum is poor.

> "...making it as efficient as sodium lamps."

Not quite. LP sodium lamps can break 200 l/w...though these have even worse spectrums than white LEDs.

> "I think the long fluorescent tubes come in around 80 lumens/watt"

A T5 tube can exceed 100 l/w.


RE: Color . . .
By Spoelie on 2/28/2007 5:44:58 PM , Rating: 1
But the fact remains that your results contradict every other available source. Can you provide any other independent source that supports your claims for practical, available lighting? The way you measured the amount of lumens may have been off..


RE: Color . . .
By mechBgon on 2/28/2007 11:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best commercially available LEDs run about 75 lumens/watt.
Make that ~115 lumens/watt. http://www.philipslumileds.com/newsandevents/relea...

My primary interest in them is high-performance bicycle lighting systems, not household light bulbs.


efficient incandescents always available
By bildan on 2/28/2007 2:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
All you have to do is overdrive the voltage and the lamp gets energy efficient - for a very short time.

GE, Sylvania etc... have a LOT invested in plants to make incandescents that they'd like to keep using. If everybody replaced their old bulbs with compact fluorescents, that would hurt big time.

'High efficiency incandescents' is an oxymoron. Ignore GE and go buy CFL's




RE: efficient incandescents always available
By TomZ on 2/28/2007 3:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nice open-minded view - NOT!

If GE can hit the same efficiency as CFLs as they claim they can, and at a lower cost, then I for one would be pretty interested. After all, what is so special about CFLs? The only reason to use them over incandescents is the efficiency. In other aspects, people seem to generally prefer incandescents - color temperature, flicker (real or perceived), start-up time, etc. Also, since CFLs require an electronic ballast, they will almost certainly always cost more than an incandescent.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2007 3:19:51 PM , Rating: 4
> "Also, since CFLs require an electronic ballast, they will almost certainly always cost more than an incandescent..."

Good points as usual, TomZ. Even if an incandescent was almost as efficient as a CFL, it'd be a better environmental choice, due to the much lower amount of materials used to construct it.


By mindless1 on 2/28/2007 3:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
What is so special is that they evolve too, color temp and flicker, start up time are negligable and beyond perception in many cases.

What remains is whether the intended use would be similarly efficient at similar cost, including the all-important lifespan factor.

I say good for GE to make these, because in a few years some knock-off will be nearly as good for a much lower cost. For what they are, name-brand incandescent bulbs cost too much as it is, especially the floodlight types. Give me a good CFL alternative floodlight for all my recessed lighting needs and I'd have no need for any incandescents anymore except outside.


By number999 on 2/28/2007 3:35:58 PM , Rating: 4
You're forgetting the one factor that incandescents don't beat flourescents and that's maintenance costs.

The average lifetime of a CFL is many times that of an incandescent which means not only less changes but also paying people less to change bulbs. In really difficult places that puts even the elevated cost of LEDs into commercial range ie. stoplights.


I wonder why ..
By geeg on 2/28/2007 1:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
they keep us feeding with garbage until they have some rivals.




RE: I wonder why ..
By mark2ft on 2/28/2007 1:26:49 PM , Rating: 5
Mind you, you will not realize that something is garbage until you have rivals.


RE: I wonder why ..
By deeznuts on 2/28/2007 2:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
Not true. We knew the traditional car engine running on gas was terribly ineffecient way before good rivals came around. Rotary engine included!


RE: I wonder why ..
By geeg on 2/28/2007 4:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not true, as theoretical work most of the times show guidelines but industries don't follow cause of financial reasons. Why invent another thing while earning loads of money already. Some examples:
If it wasnt Japanese cars, American cars would be worse.
If it wasnt AMD cpus intels' would be worse.
But you knew there could be better cars and better CPUs.
There always needs to be a motivation...


Price
By smitty3268 on 2/28/2007 1:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if these will be as cheap as incandescents, or if they're going to be priced more like CFLs.




RE: Price
By arazok on 2/28/2007 1:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing as how they will offer the benefits of florescent (efficiency), with out the drawbacks (turn on delay, poor color), I imagine that they will be priced higher even if they cost less to produce. Gotta love the free market.


RE: Price
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 2:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
The compact fluorescent bulbs I use at home are a low color temp and turn on immediately. The newer bulbs are much better than the ones sold 5 years ago. I can't tell the difference between new compact fluorescent and Edison bulb light output.


RE: Price
By FredEx on 2/28/2007 4:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, Rovemelt. I have used CFLs for many years and the new ones don't compare to the old ones. All are instant on, the color is very nice. My latest addition is a 27 watt full spectrum CFL and lamp combo for reading. It is very bright, I can put my hand on it and not get burnt. An incandescent at half the brightness would be uncomfortable over my shoulder due to the heat. My 81 year old mother loves to use the new lamp for doing her cross stitching since it is like working in sunlight, she sees the true colors of the threads.


RE: Price
By mindless1 on 2/28/2007 3:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'd expect pricing positioned between the two, a little more expensive than a traditional incandescent but due to lower complexity, cheaper than fluorescent.

The other factor is whether the lifespan is the same (as CFL). I doubt that, but admit I was too lazy to read the article yet. :-)

I don't see the drawbacks in CFL though, turn-on is fast enough, color on decent bulbs is a lot better than it used to be. Mainly I see the problems as a higher susceptibility to fire if poorly made, and less resistant to temperature extremes.


Where's the cost
By number999 on 2/28/2007 1:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for this technology especially since some people cannot stand the idea of CFL's and the flicker they may produce esp with the older magnetic ballasts but the article kind of left out the cost and it would've been nice to know on how they work.

I expect with high enough volumes, the learning curve will allow them to get cheaper though I doubt it will be at the rate of CFL's which can be bought at the dollar store these days, esp since normal incandescents are still around and very cheap.

Other conditions I would like to know is the life expetency especially in continuous on/off cycles which is the only place I use incandescents anymore and high moisture areas.

Anyway, good for GE trying to improve it's product. Nothing like the threat of losing market share to "light" a fire underneath a company's proverbial rear.




RE: Where's the cost
By techfuzz on 2/28/2007 1:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
I notice no flicker from the CFL's I've used to replace incandescents with in lamps and fixtures around my home. I do notice the flickering at my office in the long tubes used in the overhead lighting. Perhaps the smaller CFL's are less prone to flickering or they've gotten better at producing CFL's that don't flicker.

quote:
I'm all for this technology especially since some people cannot stand the idea of CFL's and the flicker they may produce esp with the older magnetic ballasts but the article kind of left out the cost and it would've been nice to know on how they work.


RE: Where's the cost
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 2:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't notice any difference in the quality of the light between incandescent and CFL's either. I think this new version of the Edison bulb is a bit of a waste, except if the new Edison bulbs are very inexpensive.


RE: Where's the cost
By mindless1 on 2/28/2007 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
They only flicker because humans are too cheap and lazy to clean up the power to them. The noticable flicker is at twice the line frequency (120 or 100Hz depending on locale), and could be done away with at higher expense, while CFL's typically use an electronic ballast which has a much higher frequency, so you wouldn't generally see that flicker.


But do they last as long?
By DOSGuy on 2/28/2007 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad that they want to make an incandescent bulb that's as efficient as a CFL, but will they last as long? CFLs are supposed to last 10 times as long as incandescent. I changed all of the bulbs in my house a few years ago, and I've never had to replace one, ever.




RE: But do they last as long?
By kattanna on 2/28/2007 1:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
i highly doubt it as it isnt even brought up

thats one thing that the CFL's have that the regular bulbs dont

a long life span. the average incandesant light bulb has a rating of about 1000 hours, the CFL's 8-10,000 hours.

so they save energy and last a LOT longer, and they arent all the much more expansive anymore. i also changed out all the incandesant with CFL and have enjoyed the light and reliability they bring.

in fact i actually enjoy how in the morning when i get up and turn the light on it takes a few seconds to come to full brightness, its not as jarring to go from complete darkness to very bright.


RE: But do they last as long?
By Oregonian2 on 2/28/2007 4:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
The CFL's I've used (as well as non-compact fluorescents) don't last anywhere near as long as they're "supposed to" when used in applications where they are turned off and on a lot (incandescents don't have this problem, despite what the old wives tale says). Packages will have asterisks showing the conditions of the expected longevity and the "on time" is pretty long there. We've some on automatic motion turn-on (like in closets) and the like and they don't last long there. For those uses, a 10,000 hour bulb should last nearly forever (never on for more than maybe five minutes a day total, in several sessions) but they'll have to be replaced every few years anyway. Ones that are on for long periods of time do much better.


Spotlight Recommendations.
By Mitch101 on 2/28/2007 1:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone recommend maybe a CFL or similar low wattage bulb that works as good as a spotlight bulb? Most of the CFL's I have had take a while to warm up and dont work with dimmers so they are yellow but after a few mins are a nice white.




RE: Spotlight Recommendations.
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2007 2:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
That is the only downside of CFL bulbs is that they don't let you use any dimmers.

I've used CFL bulbs and thought they were ok. I did like the light better however the brightness was not the same (as stated on the package). How much they saved on my power bill....well I didn't really notice a difference.


RE: Spotlight Recommendations.
By Rovemelt on 2/28/2007 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
There are some CFL's that are compatible with dimmers, but they are not common and they are more expensive than regular CFL's. If you do a google search, you'll be able to find CFL's that work with dimmers.


the wey
By loockhan on 2/28/2007 4:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
The only wey to achive this is to use infrared responsive fluorescent inner-coating ;)




RE: the wey
By loockhan on 2/28/2007 4:36:53 PM , Rating: 3
And for the bulb life, there is the old wey of using halogen....


Possible technology
By zephyrprime on 2/28/2007 5:21:16 PM , Rating: 3
I know of 2 incandescent technologies that can enable a higher efficiency than the regular incandescent bulb.

#1 - carbon nanotube bulb. This is just like a regular light but except the tungsten is replaced with carbon nanotubes. CN is super tough so it can withstand a higher temp than tungsten.
#2 - nanotech tungsten matrix. A cube of nano lincoln logs made of tungsten is constructed so that the spacing between logs is less than that of infrared. Infrared from inside the cube cannot directly escape so it is reabsorbed. Some of that energy to come back as visible light, most will come back is IR. Still more efficient than a regular bulb though.

I also guess that it would be possible to combine these 2 technologies.

I didn't make these up. These are real things that I've read about. Look these technologies up on the web if you want.




RE: Possible technology
By Baz P on 3/4/2007 12:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
There is a Sandia Labs Patent on how to create a high efficiency incandescent lamp. Basically a solid state nanotech device. Below is the abstract for the WO filing

Abstract not available for US6869330
Abstract of corresponding document: WO03019680

A photonically engineered incandescence is disclosed. The emitter materials and photonic crystal structure (380) can be chosen to modify or suppress thermal radiation above a cut off wavelength, causing the emitter to selectively emit in the visible and near-infrared portions of the spectrum. An efficient incandescent lamp is enabled thereby. A method for fabricating a three dimensional photonic crystal of a structural material, suitable for the incandescent emitter is also disclosed.


bulb life
By Oregonian2 on 2/28/2007 3:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
There are tradeoffs in bulb design. They say the factors that stay the same. The not-mentioned variables are bulb-life and cost. So I gather both of those may get worse.




RE: bulb life
By JonB on 2/28/2007 3:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
For the last three years, I've been putting CFLs around the house as incandescents die. Only one of the CFLs has died in that time. I have two dimmer lights, so they will remain incandescent until maybe a dimmable LED comes along. I don't notice the power savings so much as the heat production. In the winter, if I turn on incandescents, the heater doesn't run so much. In the summer, I use mostly CFLs and the AC doesn't run so much.


Flourescent bulbs fade books
By Markentoth on 2/28/2007 4:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer incandescent bulbs simply because the UV emissions from fluorescent lights fade books. And while UV filters are available, they are not practical and cost efficient in a home environment.




RE: Flourescent bulbs fade books
By ElJefe69 on 2/28/2007 11:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, this is true.

also, flourescent bulbs look like shit and cycle at a noticable rate. its the worst invention possible. I run my own business and I have a rule that people are only allowed to use incandescent bulbs. It is 10x better on the mind/emotions to use natural light. Candles, incands, skylights, all are healthy. corporate cheap shit makes for cheap shit employees with headaches and aggression.


Is this really new?
By jmunjr on 2/28/2007 9:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
For some reason I get the feeling this technology has been around a while but GE was suppressing it until the time was right. With the very questionable "global warming is caused by humans" theory that time is now, and it seems plausible GE reached into its future products bag and pulled out this bulb. What I'd like to see is what they have in store for 2015 on shelves now..




RE: Is this really new?
By SmokeRngs on 3/1/2007 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt this has less to do with "suppression" of technology than it does with customer demand. No, GE didn't come out with this overnight, but I'm sure they did the research a while back. The newer bulbs won't be as cheap to buy and without the customer demand for the bulbs, the market was not there for them. Now that it looks like there is a market, GE is going to produce and release the bulbs.

I don't see evidence of a conspiracy as you seem to be indicating.


No Radiation
By edlight on 3/1/2007 6:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad to see this. Flourescents give off radiation. Just test one with a portable AM radio turned all the way up and tuned to the end of the dial where it's quiet. Static. I never use one for a reading lamp. It's best to stay out of the range of the static reception.

So I use a Blues Buster, one brand of neodymium lamp. The daylight color prevents fatigue. These are standard wattages, but last much longer than standard bulbs, including the GE daylight bulbs.




RE: No Radiation
By supaflydaddyc on 3/1/2007 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
edlight,

I haven't heard of the Blues Buster light bulbs before and just checked out their website (no less than www.bluesbuster.com). I currently have a GE Reveal incandescent bulb in the lamp on my nightstand I use for reading at night. Does the Blues Buster make so much of a difference that I should replace the GE Reveal bulb?


Not available in Australia?
By dever on 3/1/2007 3:24:43 PM , Rating: 1
This is exactly the type of innovation that free markets produce. Recent moves to ban IL serves to thwart innovation.




By zephyrprime on 3/1/2007 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding me? It's moves to ban incandescents that prompted this move.


sad
By goku on 2/28/2007 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 3
What is sad is the fact that they've only begun to introduce this when there was mounting pressure about waste of electricity and usage of other bulb technologies.




Look at that...
By VIAN on 2/28/2007 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
See what a little competition forces people to do. Make the impossible, possible.

Now they choose to make the incandescent more efficient.




Tech Moves On
By FredEx on 2/28/2007 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
It seems that some folks here assume that as GE takes time to introduce these bulbs and then takes the additional time to get them to "nearly" be as efficient as fluorescents that the other industries will remain stagnant in their technologies. The CFLs of today are far better than just a few years ago. LED lighting is improving constantly with improvements in brightness and spectrum. Costs for both are dropping and will continue to drop as they are improved. As are any of the high end incandescents (long life, special coated), I bet the price on the new GEs will be pretty salty.




Mercury content
By vgermax on 2/28/2007 7:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
The presence of mercury in CFLs (and standard fluorescents) never seems to get mentioned as a potentially large negative to such proliferation of this lighting technology. The mercury recycling infrastructure for these bulbs isn't sufficiently built-up in the majority of the North America to support the large influx of these bulbs. Recycling of commercial tubes is a bit easier to handle, but this is a separate environmental disaster in the making...




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













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