First time posting in Years and so disappointed to see manufacturers/influencers claim Turbo as the ratings

[chillinn]

LED is already over 90% efficient, has been bumping up against the theoretical limit for a few years at least. They can't get much brighter, there's only so much that can be done with heat with LED. Incan has been only 4%-10% efficient forever, which is why its is coming back in a big way and will eventually surpass the efficiency of LED. In 2016, MIT announced 40% efficient incan. The heat will be used to make incan brighter, and there's a lot of it to draw from.

 

[idleprocess]

Incan has been only 4%-10% efficient forever, which is why its is coming back in a big way and will eventually surpass the efficiency of LED. In 2016, MIT announced 40% efficient incan. The heat will be used to make incan brighter, and there's a lot of it to draw from.

Been hearing news about this for more than 20 years now and have yet to see any real movement in the incandescent space. Like so many laboratory discoveries I do wonder if there were hurdles on the path to commercialization that have proven insurmountable. Two potential issues come to mind:

1. The article mentions the use of (semiconductor) material-deposition methods which could be too expensive for the economic production of filaments
2. The intricate internal filament structure may prove to be less robust than a conventional filament

 

[chillinn]

Skepticism is good. But consider LED has no room to increase efficiency, maybe a few single percents, and then its ability to increase efficiency is done. Incan has massive amounts of room to increase efficiency. Conventional incan lighting is already massively more efficient than our own sun (which is an incan light source fwiw) at producing light, and we weren't even trying. There are light sources in the Universe that are near 100% efficient. It may be a bit dreamy, but with incan, the sky is the limit.

 

[idleprocess]

Skepticism is good.

It's basic research at this point in time. Not like there are any questionable investment schemes around it or sketchy products on the market to beware of. To the extent I've got feelings about it I've never been fond of lower CCT lighting, but I doubt that any resurgence of immensely more efficient incandescent is going to impact the availability of >3000K LED/floro lighting.

I do recall some "2X" incandescent bulbs on the market a ~decade ago that might have used some hint of this concept however I cannot locate them any more.

But consider LED has no room to increase efficiency, maybe a few single percents, and then its ability to increase efficiency is done.

Agree that blue LED - the basis for the overwhelming majority of white LED lighting - is largely played out on efficiency bumps. However there's the potential to improve its thermal ruggedness, reduce its cost, possibly improve the surface intensity to near that of incandescent. We could see some improvement in red - and especially green - LED performance so as to make RGB sources more efficient, however the last movement I recall on green was actually a blue-pumped phosphor (something I gather that's also being done more recently for red)... but that's apt to remain a limited specialty application for multicolor + white lighting.

 

[chillinn]

Heat pumps are pretty efficient, will save energy and save you money over a conventional or traditional furnace. With the push for alternative energies, burning things is going to go away, and yet there are groups working on a more efficient heat pump because energy use is going to massively increase. The linked example has issues, such as requiring everyone have a tank of helium, but it makes my point. It's possible that LED efficiency just won't be good enough. Things get better all the time. It may not be tomorrow, or around the corner, but possibly decades from now grizzled CPF members will be patiently explaining to newbs how their LED flashlights are laughably inefficient, and if they want their power cells to last, they need to switch to a quality high efficiency incan.

 

[idleprocess]

It's possible that LED efficiency just won't be good enough. Things get better all the time. It may not be tomorrow, or around the corner, but possibly decades from now grizzled CPF members will be patiently explaining to newbs how their LED flashlights are laughably inefficient, and if they want their power cells to last, they need to switch to a quality high efficiency incan.

It was for sure a long largely unseen crawl until the white LED in the public's perception suddenly appeared ~20 years ago and began to take over general lighting.

But for all the talk about how the incandescent was a veritable flick of the wrist away from meeting LED efficiency when the mandates were looming 15 years ago, it would seem that the lab advancements remain in the lab for reasons not entirely clear. I suspect the concept failed because it promised three out of three for electronics - which can be cheap, simple, efficient: pick two. Things can change of course, but much like a hyped nuclear energy announcement not too long ago it's too uncertain to plan on at this point.

Also, with the general transition away from incandescent, lighting is no longer the low-hanging fruit of residential energy efficiency.

 

[KITROBASKIN]

Said to be performing at >200 lumens per watt:

Dubai Lamp | null

Dubai Lamp, the world’s most energy efficient commercially available LED lamp by Philips lighting

www.mea.lighting.philips.com

Philips goes for 210 lm/W bulbs with fanfare, but could have done it earlier

Signify has introduced "the first Philips LED A-class bulbs that meet the more stringent EU Ecodesign and Energy labeling regulations that come into

www.electronicsweekly.com

 

[cerbie]

Said to be performing at >200 lumens per watt:

Dubai Lamp | null

Dubai Lamp, the world’s most energy efficient commercially available LED lamp by Philips lighting

www.mea.lighting.philips.com

Philips goes for 210 lm/W bulbs with fanfare, but could have done it earlier

Signify has introduced "the first Philips LED A-class bulbs that meet the more stringent EU Ecodesign and Energy labeling regulations that come into

www.electronicsweekly.com

That is not a difficult task, today. High CRI LEDs are often >200lm/W to 100mA, plus or minus. It's just an expensive task, requiring a great deal of LED and heatsinking area, relative to lumens out.

 

[cerbie]

I've been away from CFP for 5 years or so, and haven't kept up like before. It seems like progress has slowed, or stalled. The turbo hype is rampant, looks silly for the pro light class, Luminus LEDs are filling in for Cree. WTH? My Fenix HP25R V1, now several years old, feels alone and lonely, holding 1000 lumens. I returned, interested to see progress and what design changes had come with it, and found little.

Cree's website shows a timeline of milestones, with the last mentioned LED advance around 2018. After that, they feature progress in horticultural lighting. Sounds like they're focused on spectrum analysis for boosting plant growth rather than achieving new efficiency standards.

Any thoughts?

They aren'treally doing much with the spectrum. 80-90 CRI commercial lighting LEDs are 95% of the way there. Fill in some of the cyan and green, and make the red to far red drop-off smoother, and you'll have it made. There are several ways to accomplish that. It turns out that most commercial indoor/greenhouse plants are pretty adaptable, once the spectrum has passed a certain quality level.

There have also been developments found that were all but impossible to verify prior to modern white LEDs. FI, secondary wavelengths in the safe range, like 410-430nm, or cyan, can be used to stimulate effects that normally required UV, allowing for things like high density, high quality, basil, thyme, etc. (not just pot!), with high concentrations of all the tasty and healthy pigments and oils that previously needed sunlight to get right.

Most of the horticultural lighting work, now, is going towards making the LEDs themselves more resilient, in face of humidity, and chemicals sprays, without needing costly conformal coatings.

 

[Mike G]

Someone oughta make a list of makers that don't use false advertising... gotta be easier than listing the ones that do, right?

 

[chillinn]

But for all the talk about how the incandescent was a veritable flick of the wrist away from meeting LED efficiency when the mandates were looming 15 years ago, it would seem that the lab advancements remain in the lab for reasons not entirely clear. I suspect the concept failed because it promised three out of three for electronics - which can be cheap, simple, efficient: pick two. Things can change of course, but much like a hyped nuclear energy announcement not too long ago it's too uncertain to plan on at this point.

"But for all the talk about how the light emitting diode was a veritable flick of the wrist away from meeting incandescent efficiency when the mandates were looming 15 years ago, it would seem that the lab advancements remain in the lab for reasons not entirely clear. I suspect the concept failed because it promised three out of three for electronics - which can be cheap, simple, efficient: pick two"
-- Joe P. Shortsighted, 1982.

Point here being, idleprocess, anyone could have said the exact same thing about LED in the early 1980s. LED lighting took some 50 years to mature, and the entire time the focus was on getting the same brightness as incan with less watts. After Edison found the right formula for incandescent lighting, there was R&D for decades to be sure, but it was not focused on efficiency, rather instead on durability. Eventually, but not too much later, the focus was on making certain a bulb would fail after x number hours and need replacing. The handwaving that you are performing to dismiss a notable leap forward that only occurred less than a decade ago is utterly astounding and honestly shocking coming from you. In April 1932 John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton split the atom for the first time. Would you, in 1939, be there handwaving away and condemning the viability of nuclear power for the reasons you just gave? Then, surprise, the first commercial nuclear power plant opened 18 years later in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Not even in 2035 would your handwaving regarding the 2016 advancement in incan efficiency be prescient or valid. We do not know the future, and though we may have an idea of the form it will take, we have absolutely no idea where technology will go nor how far, so can we please not pretend like we do?

Someone oughta make a list of makers that don't use false advertising... gotta be easier than listing the ones that do, right?

Did anyone think at all about our batteries? I believe the response from a manufacture would be, "to be sure, the advertising is accurate. If only your cell was up to the task. Get better batteries," knowing full well they don't exist yet, if they ever will. Does anyone here see my point, or are we just going to follow one another off the cliff in outrage?

 

[idleprocess]

Point here being, idleprocess, anyone could have said the exact same thing about LED in the early 1980s.

Given that I made this very point already which you chose to omit I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post nor continue to litigate the concept that interesting stuff happening in the lab is by no means certain to happen in a practical form on a predictable timescale.

 

[chillinn]

Given that I made this very point already which you chose to omit

It was for sure a long largely unseen crawl until the white LED in the public's perception suddenly appeared ~20 years ago and began to take over general lighting.

This was your concession? I did not realize its significance.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post nor continue to litigate the concept that interesting stuff happening in the lab is by no means certain to happen in a practical form on a predictable timescale.

More than you realize, I completely understand. Good talk.

 

[idleprocess]

Good talk.

It's been fun. But not real fun. Bye.

 

[chillinn]

It's been fun. But not real fun. Bye.

As I have explained to others before, it is absolutely your birthright to talk about what you want to talk about and not talk about what you don't want to talk about. Passive-aggressiveness is purely optional.

 

[Mike G]

It don't matter anyways, whether incandescent bulbs come back in 20 years or not, the corpos'll still lie about how good (and especially how much better) their flashlights are...

 

[bykfixer]

Meanwhile the wheels on the bus go round and round while lumen wars rage on.

 

[chillinn]

Ithe corpos'll still lie about how good (and especially how much better) their flashlights are...

How can you be absolutely certain it's not your cells, rather than your flashlights, that are letting you down?

 

[NightTime]

Il rarely buy a light without a review and a runtime graph. Any numbers before 30 mins (not 30 sec) are considered useless to me. I don't care the wow factor. If a muggle is impress by the 4k lumens output, but then ask : "So how long does this last ?" it rapidly change into a ridiculus factor if the answer is 30 sec IMHO.

 

[KITROBASKIN]

To some it is so much easier to read up on candlepowerforums about what members think, then just buying a flashlight is not usually so expensive to just try it out for any given application. Then after a while, a person pretty much has a good idea what a flashlight will do from experience and looking at the specifications. And checking CPF...

Current incandescent research (if there really is anything substantial) might be reminiscent of early efforts to put wheels on horses to get around?