Another Unique Lightbulb Technology with interesting potential.

[slebans]

I just read through Vu1's first quarter(dated May 16) SEC filing. If they don't find an angel investor/lender -or someone to purchase the company- they do not have the resources(cash) to continue operations for the remainder of this year.

IMHO, if Vu1 does not have a clear R&D path to achieve >200 lumens per watt, LED/OLED will ultimately own the vast majority of the lighting marketplace.

Stephen Lebans

 

[jtr1962]

The problem in search of a solution is the resistance to fluorescent lighting in the home by consumers. Even though fluorescent CFLs and tubes have improved tremendously over the last decade or so, most consumers still hate them in their homes and pine for something better.

Younger consumers are mostly technology neutral provided the lamp delivers the light distribution and color they prefer. If there was any resistance to fluorescent lighting, then it was because flourescent got a bad rap due to the early halophosphor tubes which flickered, and had awful color rendering. Ever since, the battle to get people to use flourescents has been due in part to overcoming that bad rap. I suspect we haven't overcome it yet. The only reason CFLs are being adopted in increasing numbers is because of a younger generation never exposed much to really bad fluorescent lighting. As a result, they just didn't develop the aversion to it their parents had. And that same older generation which still resists CFLs isn't going to be any more likely to adopt this lamp. Strictly speaking, it's still a fluorescent lamp, only it's driven via a cathode ray tube instead of a mercury arc.

I have two of these Vu1 R30s in my kitchen right now. As a kitchen designer, who has been providing lighting design to my clients for 20 years, I can tell you that these lamps are a viable replacement for the CFLs that consumers dislike so much. The light is well-colored and as bright and strong as any 65 watt incandescent or CFL 65 watt replacement lamp.

This new ESL technology IS a solution well suited to the problem. As the company rolls out more products, I expect it will be a resoundingly successful enterprise.

You can purchase the R30 on Seattle's Destination Lighting online web site by ones and twos. An order of three will give you free shipping (orders over $50).

http://www.destinationlighting.com/storeitem.jhtml?iid=346884

Try it out. I think you will be as excited about the products as I am.

I appreciate the offer to try these out but truth is I don't even have any sockets where an R30 lamp will be appropriate, although it might be OK in a table lamp or desk lamp. You see, years ago, I converted most of the house to 4-foot linear fluorescent (first T12, then T8). I'm more than happy with this choice. The ceiling mount fixtures are unobtrusive and give plenty of light. The tubes last over a decade. And I can get the high-CRI, 5000K light I prefer (this is actually one big reason I made the switch besides efficiency-I personally can't stand incandescent-type light). If these we made in 5000K, I might consider getting one for a desk lamp or table lamp just to try, but at 2700K I really have no interest at all.

 

[EZO]

Despite the naysayers VU1 Corporation seems to be plugging along with their ESL lightbulb technology. They have apparently obtained the needed financing and are about to introduce an A19 type bulb in the US in August.

This company and its products may or may not float but it will be interesting to see what kind of reception their novel bulb receives. I plan to buy some just to check them out.

 

[ryguy24000]

Maybe with a little additional research the efficiency levels will increase. Or a whole new technology will be discovered?

 

[deadrx7conv]

Thats what I'm hoping. Its not 'all about' the overrated LED(which IMO is getting too many subsidizes, grants, and written as a requirement). ESL, LVD/induction, LEP, improved CFL, CCFL, .... and other lighting options exist and need to be R&D'd also.

 

[jtr1962]

ESL, LVD/induction, LEP, improved CFL, CCFL, .... and other lighting options exist and need to be R&D'd also.

There was a paper in 1995 which basically showed that fluorescent and other discharge lamp technologies were already close to their inherent limits. This is why they're not receiving much R&D. There just isn't much room for improvement beyond decreasing costs. For example, Stokes losses incurred when exciting a phosphor are much higher with flourescent because the mercury arc is a shorter wavelength than a blue LED. This is basic physics with no workaround. On the other hand, there's no inherent reason a solid-state light source can't approach 100% efficiency, compared to at best 50% for other lighting technologies.

 

[EZO]

Back on May 20th in post #17 of this thread I was musing about the type of electron emitter that is currently being used in the VU1 lightbulb (they still don't say) and speculated that carbon nanotube field emitters could be the answer to dramatically increasing the efficiency of a bulb of this design.

Sure enough, VU1 Corporation issued a press release a week ago (June 23rd) announcing the allowance of a U.S. Patent for its Electron Stimulated Luminescence™ Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs.

According to the release, "Cold cathode technology has come to the foreground with the discovery of carbon nanotubes - nature's ideal cathode technology. The Company believes converting to this technology would provide higher efficiency, turn on times measured in millionth's of a second and simplified electronics resulting in lower cost. The Company has already demonstrated this approach internally and would anticipate commercial products in less than two years."

Interesting; they anticipate higher efficiency AND lower costs with the use of a carbon nanotube emitter.

Carbon Nanotubes (Fullerenes) have been a remarkable discovery with a wide range of potential applications. Regarding their use as field emitters, here too, they have some amazing properties. For anyone interested, here is an interesting technical article published by the Foresight Institute titled "Why are carbon nanotubes such excellent field emitters?"

I mentioned back in post #17 that carbon nanotubes are being developed for use in Field Emission Displays (FED) as TV and computer flat panel displays. This is essentially a form of the same technology VU1 intends to deploy in it's cold cathode bulbs but since the original IP was developed by Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc I wonder if they will need to license the technology (or perhaps already have). Applied Nanotech was the company that did the initial research into a carbon emission light source and is still developing the technology for display panels and industrial/medical use.

What I find most interesting about the potential for this bulb technology is that it does not have any of the issues with heat that exist with other bulb types. Along with pleasing CRI numbers and it's other characteristics it could well be a viable ancillary technology that can exist along with more efficient LEDs assuming the efficiencies increase and the cost continues to come down. Time will tell.

​

 

[idleprocess]

I'll be interested to see where this tech goes simply because it seems to offer near-infinite variety of spectrum ... might even be "tuneable" someday to a wide variety of colors. It does appear to be tolerant of high temperatures as well. If starts nearly instantly and handles short-cycling at least as gracefully as the incandescent then it has some chance in the marketplace.

 

[EZO]

I'll be interested to see where this tech goes simply because it seems to offer near-infinite variety of spectrum ... might even be "tuneable" someday to a wide variety of colors. It does appear to be tolerant of high temperatures as well. If starts nearly instantly and handles short-cycling at least as gracefully as the incandescent then it has some chance in the marketplace.

idleprocess, speaking of "tuneable" color wavelengths I posted some links to another thread regarding this feature being developed for OLED technology. It would be very interesting and very cool if that feature could become available in a "bulb" format.

For convenience, here they are again if it would interest you to read them.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/01/13/color-temperature-adustable-oled-lighting-yes-please/

http://www.cens.com/cens/html/en/news/news_inner_30761.html

 

[SemiMan]

Their "marketing" videos using so-called experts was to me a load of BS. Frankly, some of these so called PhDs should be ashamed of themselves!

This is a phosphor based technology. Yes you have more up-conversion range of phosphor with e-beam stimulation but at the end of the day, it is a phosphor based technology. Hence, in terms of spectrum there is inherently very little advantage over fluorescents or over UV stimulated LEDs and some would even argue over blue stimulated LEDS.

Sure, take a crappy fluorescent and crappy LED and compare it to the ESL bulb. That is marketing BS, that is not science and to my point, those in the video claiming to be scientists should be ashamed! How about comparing a high quality wide spectrum fluorescent or a high CRI LED .... perhaps one of the ones with some deep red... both of which have higher efficiency?

How about talking about Lumileds 2-3 step McAdam's ellipse LEDS where you can't tell one from the other as opposed to talking about the state of the art years ago?

Is it an interesting technology? ... yes
May I consider buying it? ... yes if it is cheap ... I am not a big fan of PAR fluorescents and can't justify current LED prices everywhere.

Will it be cheaper than LED by the time I actually see it on the store shelf ... guessing that is going to be debatable.

If you want to convince me ... use honesty!


"I suspect within a few years, similar lamps based on highly efficient blue LEDs to drive a phosphor-coated bulb will render this technology obsolete. With current LEDs, particularly in the warm/neutral color temps, most of the waste heat occurs due to losses in the phosphor layer, not in the blue LED junction emitter itself. By distributing the phosphor over a large area, heating should no longer be localized at the junction of the LED."

... this is not true. The losses are in the emitter mainly, not in the phosphor. I think what you are confusing is light generation and light extraction. The actual conversion process is quite efficient, but a lot gets reabsorbed and lost as heat. Warm LEDs have lower lumens not so much because of phosphor losses but due to the eyes sensitivity of the converted wavelengths. Use a blue led without the phosphor .... it gets almost as hot as it's phosphor coated equivalent.

... On the IPOD, yes it was execution, timing, ecosystem, and cool factor. With the exception of us geeks on this forum, PAR lights do not have much cool factor. Some yes, but for the most part, your neighbor is not going to ogle your ESL light. Apple also delivered a product that customers exactly wanted ... truly portable web-browsing (which is what it is most used for) with some e-book, games, music, etc. thrown in. All backed up by the IPOD/IPHONE ecosystem. Hardly the same thing with something as simple as a bulb. I am not saying they will not have commercial success, but it will not be because of "cool" factor, but because of price and performance.

 

[kaichu dento]

If you want to convince me ... use honesty!

+1

They actually hurt themselves in the long run by selling snake oil to an unsuspecting populace, who later on won't listen anymore.

 

[PhotonWrangler]

It looks interesting, although I want to know how the phosphor holds up in the face of long term stimulation as compared to fluorescent phosphors. All phosphors age when they're stimulated; this is why plasma TVs suffer from burn-in and why a fluorescent tube that runs for a long time eventually loses it's phosphor coating in spots. Will this technology have a comparable phosphor lifetime?

 

[idleprocess]

It looks interesting, although I want to know how the phosphor holds up in the face of long term stimulation as compared to fluorescent phosphors. All phosphors age when they're stimulated; this is why plasma TVs suffer from burn-in and why a fluorescent tube that runs for a long time eventually loses it's phosphor coating in spots. Will this technology have a comparable phosphor lifetime?

Suspect that has something to do with its 10k hour rated lifespan.

 

[EZO]

+1

They actually hurt themselves in the long run by selling snake oil to an unsuspecting populace, who later on won't listen anymore.

If you want to convince me ... use honesty!

I'm not sure I "get" the level of vitriol and negativity that's been directed in this thread towards the VU1 company and it's nascent product(s), particularly since the opinions being expressed are apparently based on a couple of out of date promotional YouTube videos and an illustration graphic which were first published when the bulb was in its prototyping phase. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions and PR hype needs to be taken with a grain of salt but accusing this firm of "selling snake oil" or being dishonest seem more than a little over the top.

A good place to start might be to have a look at the actual specifications that are published on the company's website. (and that have been revised upwards at least twice now) Or read some of the initial positive reactions of architects and designers who are starting to get their hands on these bulbs now that they are entering the marketplace including a post by a CPF member, a kitchen designer, about his hands on experience with this bulb technology right here in this thread.

Curiously, many of the negative remarks about this technology seem to project a certain blind allegiance to LEDs based entirely on increasing efficiency while ignoring their shortcomings and ignoring again the fact that ESL bulbs address those shortcomings (and importantly, those of CFLs as well). Specifically, I'm referring to the bulb's resistance to heat issues, fully dimable capabilities, instant on, no hg, ability to be recycled, high power factor and excellent CRI numbers (>85).

Comparing ESL bulbs to LED actually seems like comparing apples and oranges since they are really more in a space between CFL and incans for the time being. I believe this is probably a technology that may coexist with LED and other forms for quite some time, at least or unless another heat resistant, dimable bulb comes into play that offers pleasing light and reasonably good efficiency.

Obviously, LEDs have a grand future ahead in many but certainly not all lighting applications. Yet, a viable, affordable LED replacement for an A19 form factor is still several years away at least while VU1 will have their A19 bulbs on the market next month and they are projected to be introduced at a price far lower than any current LED bulb of quality. At that time their price and performance can be properly evaluated. (True, they will cost more than CFLs for now) Of course, as with any brand new electronic device prices are likely to come down over time as new iterations are introduced and manufacturing scale and optimizations are increased.

Another consideration is the company's stated intent to migrate to the use of carbon nanotube electron emitters. I have been closely following the development of this technology for almost twenty years now. In the early nineties this carbon based emitter technology focused on what was then called Diamond Field Emission which was later superseded by the newly discovered and closely related field of carbon nanotube research. The potential for this technology is extraordinary for a number of reasons not the least of which is the ability to cheaply create a highly efficient emitter of almost any shape. Personally, I will be excited to see this technology finally make it into a marketable product.

As I have stated earlier in this thread I have no personal feelings about whether the VU1 corporation sinks or swims. I am not necessarily a cheerleader, but at the same time I think that the disregard and dismissive attitudes on display here against any technology that is not based on an LED and which are built upon the most superficial and shallow of data rather than an actual hands on evaluation seem sorely misplaced.

One can argue about the pros and cons of a phosphor based bulb (even the Philips LED bulbs) or efficiency or longevity or cost or quality of light and so on and so forth, but how about sticking to the facts rather than merely bloviating?

 

[kaichu dento]

Ezo, I have no stake in this game either and simply made a post in support of honesty in marketing. It hurts a company, even though they may have a great product, if they overstate their claims, and at best, looks suspect when they make comparisons only with the worst the competition has to offer.

I'm no blind-allegiance follower of LED's or any other technology and am excited every time I hear of a new breakthrough, so don't take any post from me as a lack of support. :thumbsup:

 

[jtr1962]

The fact that I had to dig around the site to find the CRI (and they don't even give a number, but just state it's >85) smacks of marketing BS trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The ads all tout how great the color of the VU1 lamp is compared to alternatives, but why no hard numbers there? Maybe it's because it's no better than any other decent phosphor-based technology? CFLs have had a CRI of 80 to 85 for quite some time, for example. Same thing with efficiency. You have to dig around to find that it's only 30 lm/W. So that basically leaves resistance to heat as the primary advantage here over a decent LED bulb (which would also be dimmable, have decent CRI, instant on, no Hg, high power factor, and be recycleable with proper design, all while having at least twice the efficiency). Is it possible efficiency will greatly increase while cost will come down? Sure, and in my opinion that's what needs to happen for this to even have a chance as anything other than a niche product. Nevertheless, the negativity here is because of the overstated marketing claims and apples to oranges comparisons. For $20 you can easily purchase a fully dimmable CFL with great CRI. In not too long an even better LED bulb will be available for the same $20. Comparing a $20 ESL lamp with the worst of the LEDs and CFLs is not a fair comparison. According to their comparison chart, LEDs aren't even dimmable, and have poor light quality compared to the ESL lamp. When you look at the CRI specs, turns out that isn't so.

Like SemiMan said, try a little honesty in marketing here. If a product claims to be so great compared to alternatives, why be so afraid to post some numbers right up front? I'm sure I'm not alone in looking at the numbers when considering products like this. And marketing can't use the excuse that shoppers won't look at numbers. They do it all the time when buying cars, for example, comparing mpg, acceleration, top speed, braking distance, etc.

 

[EZO]

The fact that I had to dig around the site to find the CRI (and they don't even give a number, but just state it's >85) smacks of marketing BS trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The ads all tout how great the color of the VU1 lamp is compared to alternatives, but why no hard numbers there? Maybe it's because it's no better than any other decent phosphor-based technology? CFLs have had a CRI of 80 to 85 for quite some time, for example. Same thing with efficiency. You have to dig around to find that it's only 30 lm/W. So that basically leaves resistance to heat as the primary advantage here over a decent LED bulb (which would also be dimmable, have decent CRI, instant on, no Hg, high power factor, and be recycleable with proper design, all while having at least twice the efficiency). Is it possible efficiency will greatly increase while cost will come down? Sure, and in my opinion that's what needs to happen for this to even have a chance as anything other than a niche product. Nevertheless, the negativity here is because of the overstated marketing claims and apples to oranges comparisons. For $20 you can easily purchase a fully dimmable CFL with great CRI. In not too long an even better LED bulb will be available for the same $20. Comparing a $20 ESL lamp with the worst of the LEDs and CFLs is not a fair comparison. According to their comparison chart, LEDs aren't even dimmable, and have poor light quality compared to the ESL lamp. When you look at the CRI specs, turns out that isn't so.

Like SemiMan said, try a little honesty in marketing here. If a product claims to be so great compared to alternatives, why be so afraid to post some numbers right up front? I'm sure I'm not alone in looking at the numbers when considering products like this. And marketing can't use the excuse that shoppers won't look at numbers. They do it all the time when buying cars, for example, comparing mpg, acceleration, top speed, braking distance, etc.

This is the same argument you made two months or more ago so I'm not sure why you feel the need to repeat yourself, although I've noticed that seems to be your style. Like I said earlier, some members prefer bloviation over dialogue. You know, the VU1 A19 bulb isn't even on the market yet and no claims or specs have been released but you are already Sh**canning it. I will wait until I can check one out personally before I reach a conclusion. Interestingly, the only online source of the Par30 lamp has entirely sold out their initial shipment and the well known lighting designer, consultant and author Randall Whitehead seems to view the VU1 bulb favorably. Guess, everyone who bought one of the VU1 Par-30s is an ignorant victim of the snake oil salesmen, or maybe they rather see for themselves what they think of it.

Speaking of BS, your initial sentence in this post seems to intentionally paint VU1 in a negative "light" with such statements as, "The fact that I had to dig around the site to find the CRI (and they don't even give a number, but just state it's >85) smacks of marketing BS trying to pull the wool over our eyes." Gee, all I needed to do was click on the word "Spec Sheet" prominently featured right at the top of the page along with the other menu items. This is digging?

Kaichu, I appreciate your perspective and your post, as I've said, I just thought the term "snake oil" was more than these guys deserve for the time being. If they start spouting BS in TV or magazine ads I'll be the first to agree but some old YouTube promos put out by some PR firm during prototyping are hardly worth getting all upset about. Let's let the product get into enough competent hands to make a relevant evaluation and go from there.

By the way, kaichu, it's EZO not EVO.

 

[jtr1962]

EZO,

I starting writing another long piece trying to explain things, but you apparently have your mind made up. Try rereading SemiMan's post. It wasn't bloviating or vitriol, but matter of fact statements comparing this lamp's relevant specs to existing technologies (which is basically the same thing I did). Bottom line in my opinion isn't that this is a bad lamp, but that's it's overpriced for what it is. For that matter, so are many LED lamps nowadays. For $5 this lamp makes sense, perhaps even $8, but that's pushing it. As for specs, I would imagine the A19 lamp's CRI and efficiency specs will be similar to the R30 lamp. If any dramatic improvement in efficiency had been made, I'm sure the company would mention it on their web page.

And don't get me started on lighting designers and their recommendations. Most lighting designers still prefer incandescent, and focus almost exclusively on aesthetics. Given their typical clientele, TCO or efficiency or lifetime are usually not on the charts. If Electronics Design ever endorses this bulb, then I'll eat all my previous words (ED would pretty much use the same criteria as I or SemiMan would, so I doubt that'll happen).

 

[EZO]

EZO,

I starting writing another long piece trying to explain things, but you apparently have your mind made up. Try rereading SemiMan's post. It wasn't bloviating or vitriol, but matter of fact statements comparing this lamp's relevant specs to existing technologies (which is basically the same thing I did). Bottom line in my opinion isn't that this is a bad lamp, but that's it's overpriced for what it is. For that matter, so are many LED lamps nowadays. For $5 this lamp makes sense, perhaps even $8, but that's pushing it. As for specs, I would imagine the A19 lamp's CRI and efficiency specs will be similar to the R30 lamp. If any dramatic improvement in efficiency had been made, I'm sure the company would mention it on their web page.

And don't get me started on lighting designers and their recommendations. Most lighting designers still prefer incandescent, and focus almost exclusively on aesthetics. Given their typical clientele, TCO or efficiency or lifetime are usually not on the charts. If Electronics Design ever endorses this bulb, then I'll eat all my previous words (ED would pretty much use the same criteria as I or SemiMan would, so I doubt that'll happen).

As you always try so hard to make clear to us jtr1962, you are the smartest guy in the room.

 

[jtr1962]

As you always try so hard to make clear to us jtr1962, you are the smartest guy in the room.

Bad day?