EcoRenovator  

Go Back   EcoRenovator > Improvements > Lighting
Advanced Search
 


Blog Register 60+ Home Energy Saving Tips Recent Posts Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-07-12, 02:13 PM   #1
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 5,269
Thanks: 922
Thanked 342 Times in 277 Posts
Default FIPEL light bulbs - as efficient as LEDs

Sadly, the article seems to bash LEDs and CFLs. It almost seems like a sales add. However, it still does introduce a technolgy I've never heard of so I thought I'd post it. I do wonder about the one thing they don't talk about though... cost!

New Lighting Could Replace Fluorescents, CFLs, and LEDs As The Light Source Of The Future | Popular Science

Quote:
The Wake Forest team used a multi-layer white-emitting blend of polymers imbued with a small amount of nanomaterials that glow when stimulated with an electric charge. This nano-engineered polymer matrix is essentially a whole new type of light bulb...

...it is at least twice as efficient as CFLs...

...we know the technology is long-lasting (one of the researchers has had a prototype FIPEL light source that he claims has worked for a decade)...

__________________
Current project -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
&
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Daox is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-12, 09:28 PM   #2
Less usage=Cheaper bills
 
MN Renovator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 875
Thanks: 41
Thanked 102 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Emissive electroluminescence is LED, a 25k-50k hour life. I have a few LEDs in my house that are rated for 50,000 hours(5.7 continuous operating years).
Field-induced polymer electroluminescence is supposed to be a 20,000 hour life source from what I've read. I've tried to find lumen efficacy on these things and the only information I could find that actually compared the two was at 7000k which is very blue, not daylight CFL colored blue but actually visibly blue and the difference was significant in comparison to CFL efficacy but I don't think it would be better than an LED which also has its sweet spot at around 6000k. I'm not sure how much the efficiency changes when bending it back to a common color temperature most people would probably be after such as 3000k.

The only advantage I see if that since it's a field-induced source instead of emissive, it shouldn't be directional specific as LEDs are. We'll see. To me it's a wait and see thing.
MN Renovator is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-13, 02:44 PM   #3
Helper EcoRenovator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 34
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Sorry to activate a nearly-dead thread but I read up a bit more on this - Ars Technica had a nice breakdown of the news release.

One pertinent thing they pointed out was that the amount of light was not much. Yes, the FIPEL technology is efficient, but the amount of light is pretty dim compared to something even as modest as a full moon. As one commentator put it, "that's not lighting."
elhigh is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-13, 10:18 PM   #4
Supreme EcoRenovator
 
NiHaoMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,051
Thanks: 12
Thanked 223 Times in 212 Posts
Default

Is there a reason why it couldn't scale up? Sure, a little 5mm LED isn't enough for general lighting, but an array of them work great.
__________________
Allie Moore and I have a combined carbon footprint much smaller than that of one average American...
NiHaoMike is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-13, 04:24 PM   #5
Helper EcoRenovator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 34
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Promising, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NiHaoMike View Post
Is there a reason why it couldn't scale up? Sure, a little 5mm LED isn't enough for general lighting, but an array of them work great.
Sorry I'm so late getting back, my ISP has a less-than-stunning record of reliability.

It would absolutely have to scale up.

I looked at the Ars Technica article and according to that, the FIPEL emitter produces light only 1/25 as intense as a full moon. Now we can all agree that on a clear night a full moon is actually pretty bright, making the landscape light enough to see your way around very clearly...but that's a long way away from actually bright.

I reckon if you were to make the entire ceiling a lighting emitter at that level of intensity it would work...but who wants to replace the entire ceiling when it stops being bright enough? I don't think this technology is ready for prime time. It has a way to go yet.
elhigh is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-13, 08:19 AM   #6
Helper EcoRenovator
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 245862
Posts: 43
Thanks: 12
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

The cost would likely destroy the benefits... Most likely you could get a fiberoptic strip with a super bright LED for the same cost. You would get just as much light and use very little energy. Once the LED finally burns out all you need to do is replace the LED. The FIPEL you would have to replace the entire thing.
razor02097 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-13, 04:06 AM   #7
Helper EcoRenovator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 66
Thanks: 4
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

150 lumen/watt LED is not too far off from home improvement store shelves, meaning at prices joe public will tolerate. That is about 2x CFL.

Anything based on semiconductor technology is enjoying a very rapid improvement in efficiency and cost these days. I expect it to continue for years if not decades.

Last edited by ELGo; 04-24-13 at 04:09 AM..
ELGo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-13, 09:45 AM   #8
Helper EcoRenovator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 34
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Nearly there

I saw a press release from a company called NanoLeaf that is getting ready to produce a heat sink-less LED bulb that delivers 133 lumens per watt. That's better than pretty much anything you can buy on the consumer market. It's even nearly the same shape as a conventional bulb. 75 watts worth of light at 10 watts load, that's really very very good.

I also have seen a couple of press releases from Cree announcing LEDs that deliver as much as 240+ lumens per watt. No idea if those are available, however. When that happens though, I might just relamp the entire house. It would cut my lighting load by a factor of 4.

A 75 watt equivalent lamp drawing 5 watts. It almost boggles the mind.

elhigh is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO
Ad Management by RedTyger
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design