Another Unique Lightbulb Technology with interesting potential.

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
It is amazing just how much research is being thrown at developing new light bulb technology. While much of the attention is being focused on CFLs, LEDs and even OLEDs, other technologies are in the works.

Here's one I hadn't been aware of until recently. VU1 Corporation has their first product out the door and it can be ordered directly for $19.95. (You need to order at least 8 of them) It is designed to replace a 65W incandescent R-30 flood bulb for recessed light fixtures but they claim to have other types in the works.

The bulbs uses Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) which bears a certain relationship with CRT tubes.

"Electron Stimulated Luminescence Lighting Technology is an entirely new, energy efficient lighting technology. It uses accelerated electrons to stimulate phosphor to create light, making the surface of the bulb "glow". ESL technology creates the same light quality as an incandescent but is up to 70% more energy efficient, lasting up to 5 times longer than incandescent and contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. There is no use of the neurotoxin Mercury (Hg) in the lighting process.

"ESL uniquely applies much of the science that has been proven over a long period of time in TV and CRT technology. However, ESL has made groundbreaking improvements in uniform electron distribution, energy efficiency, phosphor performance and manufacturing costs. More simply, CRT and TV technology is based on delivering an electron "beam" and then turning pixels on and off very quickly. ESL technology is based on uniformly delivering a "spray" of electrons that illuminate a large surface very energy efficiently over a long lifetime."

It will be interesting to see how this technology pans out in the long run, although they still haven't achieved the 100 Watt standard bulb equivalent.

http://www.vu1corporation.com/technology/

vu1_bulb.jpg



 
Last edited:

deadrx7conv

Enlightened
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
621
Location
USA
So many choices, what to purchase? Too bad I can't get just 1 or 2 to see how they look. $185(w/tax&shipping) for 8 bulbs is a risky investment. VU1 needs to get these in a dept or hardware store chain ASAP.

I think that my next "30" sized bulb will be the 14w LED BR30 Ecosmart from HomeyDepot. Its $30 and if I don't like it, I can either easily return it or use it in a rarely-used fixture location. The CFL R30's that I have now are an eyesore.
 

JohnR66

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
1,052
Location
SW Ohio
I recall reading about this technology a couple years back, probably here on CPF. 600 lumens at 19.5 watts = 30.7 lumens per watt. I think this is too little too late as LEDs are starting to take off.
 

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
I agree, I would order one or two myself. I think the company is just trying to get some of them out to the public and reviewers as soon as they can while they get their sales and distribution network up and running without going entirely into the retail end of the business.

I'd love to test one of them out in an architect's lamp on one my work tables. The color rendering comparison photo they show for ESL bulbs looks really interesting but I'd love to see what the CRI really looks like.

technology_1.jpg
 

Steve K

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
2,786
Location
Peoria, IL
Is there any info on the actual technology? i.e. how are electrons stimulating those phosphors? Is it different from electroluminescense (sp?)? Are they saying it's literally like a CRT? i.e. electrons are flung at high speed into a phosphor? If so, does this present a risk of generating x-rays (I think...) and needing to put lead in the glass as is done in a CRT?

I did find a wiki entry, but it doesn't have the level of detail I was hoping for. It does mention that about 5kv is used to get those little 'trons up and energized. That's not too bad.

regards,
Steve K.
 

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
Is there any info on the actual technology? i.e. how are electrons stimulating those phosphors? Is it different from electroluminescense (sp?)? Are they saying it's literally like a CRT? i.e. electrons are flung at high speed into a phosphor? If so, does this present a risk of generating x-rays (I think...) and needing to put lead in the glass as is done in a CRT?

I did find a wiki entry, but it doesn't have the level of detail I was hoping for. It does mention that about 5kv is used to get those little 'trons up and energized. That's not too bad.

regards,
Steve K.

You raised some questions that I have had too. Either they're ducking the question of x-ray emissions and leaded glass or it is a non issue they don't need to concern themselves with. It could be that because it is a "spray" of electrons rather than an electron beam "gun" that the emissions are not a problem. I imagine that others will be asking this obvious question.

As for information with further detail, here is the patent.

Also, I found two other video "infomercials" from the company. There are interviews with outside "experts" but it is hard to tell if their opinions are unbiased. I found the videos interesting nevertheless because there is some new info about their prototypes, where they demonstrate a functional Edison type bulb and show a forthcoming fluorescent type replacement tube. There's also some good footage of the bulbs being manufactured, tested and demonstrated.



 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
While this is interesting new technology, I'm just not seeing where it fits in. It's way more expensive than CFLs, and about the same as LED. In return for the extra expense it offers neither higher efficiency nor greater lifetime (11,000 hour lifetime is mediocre by today's standards). Honestly, to me anyway it seems like a solution in search of a problem.
 

Steve K

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
2,786
Location
Peoria, IL
nice videos... it does seem a bit ironic that they are touting the "white spectrum" available from incandescents as well as their ESL technology, and they are doing this in a video that is being viewed on a monitor using red, green and blue phosphors on a CRT (in my case), or a LCD screen that is backlit by either florescent or LED sources. Maybe I'm uninformed, but doesn't this shoot down their argument that a continuous spectrum is really required?? Or are they trying to make a demonstration within the limitations of the media?

moving on... when they show the big bulb, my first thought was of a CRT from an old TV or oscilloscope! I wish someone would tear one apart and report on it, similar to what some magazines were doing with LED lights. Just be sure to discharge that high voltage cap before you start poking around inside it!

Steve K.
 

deadrx7conv

Enlightened
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
621
Location
USA
Its cheaper than currently available LED bulbs. A good R30/PAR30... type LED bulb is $30-$60. This ESL is about $20. And, you can bet that most shoppers shop on price and is why free-CFLs(thank your utility co) and paid for incan's(cheapskates) are the most commonly used bulbs. Get rid of both and you have a price battle brewing among LED, LVD, ESL.... We need this ESL bulb in normal G60/A19 bulb size and in R38 sizes too. And, once adapted by the major stores, price will come down too.

The price for LED will come down with time. But, CFL's never reached the incan price point and is why we need incan's to become outlaws.

I also do not want ONE type of bulb to choose from. I find that my LVD, LED, halogen(we call it an efficient incan), .... all serve their purposes. Competition among tech is a must!
 

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
Its cheaper than currently available LED bulbs. A good R30/PAR30... type LED bulb is $30-$60. This ESL is about $20. And, you can bet that most shoppers shop on price and is why free-CFLs(thank your utility co) and paid for incan's(cheapskates) are the most commonly used bulbs. Get rid of both and you have a price battle brewing among LED, LVD, ESL.... We need this ESL bulb in normal G60/A19 bulb size and in R38 sizes too. And, once adapted by the major stores, price will come down too.

The price for LED will come down with time. But, CFL's never reached the incan price point and is why we need incan's to become outlaws.

I also do not want ONE type of bulb to choose from. I find that my LVD, LED, halogen(we call it an efficient incan), .... all serve their purposes. Competition among tech is a must!

I agree about having different bulbs/lightsources to chose from. ESL bulbs have the added feature of no mercury which is also a plus. As previously mentioned the video I linked earlier shows VU1 demonstrating a functioning ESL Edison style bulb, a Par 38 and a 4 foot fluorescent tube replacement in development that can be dimmed. If these bulbs are perfected I could see potential for wide adoption because they would fit existing fixtures more easily than current alternatives.

Another consideration is that the video shows the PAR30 bulb being manufactured and their current method apparently demands a lot of manual labor. If manufacturing techniques were to become more automated the prices would drop substantially.

I still want more info on what type of electron emitter these things use though.
 
Last edited:

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
While this is interesting new technology, I'm just not seeing where it fits in. It's way more expensive than CFLs, and about the same as LED. In return for the extra expense it offers neither higher efficiency nor greater lifetime (11,000 hour lifetime is mediocre by today's standards). Honestly, to me anyway it seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Emphasis mine. That was my read. I think it began with a CRT manufacturing facility looking for a means of staying afloat, with lighting being about all they could come up with...
 

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
While this is interesting new technology, I'm just not seeing where it fits in. It's way more expensive than CFLs, and about the same as LED. In return for the extra expense it offers neither higher efficiency nor greater lifetime (11,000 hour lifetime is mediocre by today's standards). Honestly, to me anyway it seems like a solution in search of a problem..


Emphasis mine. That was my read. I think it began with a CRT manufacturing facility looking for a means of staying afloat, with lighting being about all they could come up with...

I'm not sure I agree with you and jtr1962. This may prove to be a viable technology for several reasons. Who are we to dismiss it out of hand? These kind of remarks make me think of an interview I saw with a well known tech writer who said he thought the just introduced iPad would fail because he couldn't see a real use for it.

In truth, I do see your point about keeping an old CRT factory and its employees afloat and also had that thought, but it could also turn out to be an astute use of an existing resource.

This company may have a technology that unlike current generation LEDs and CFLs could adequately replace all existing PAR 30 and 38 bulbs, G60/A19 bulbs and tubular fluorescents using currently installed fixtures with a singular technology that has no mercury and where the price could be brought down rather quickly.
 
Last edited:

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
I'm not sure I agree with you and jtr1962. This may prove to be a viable technology for several reasons. Who are we to dismiss it out of hand? These kind of remarks make me think of an interview I saw with a well known tech writer who said he thought the just introduced iPad would fail because he couldn't see a real use for it.

In truth, I do see your point about keeping an old CRT factory and its employees afloat and also had that thought, but it could also turn out to be an astute use of an existing resource.

This company may have a technology that unlike current generation LEDs and CFLs could adequately replace all existing PAR 30 and 38 bulbs, G60/A19 bulbs and tubular fluorescents using currently installed fixtures with a singular technology that has no mercury and where the price could be brought down rather quickly.

Said tech writer wasn't exactly alone in the initial assessment of the iPad. Often forgotten in the wake of Apple's runaway success is that over the past decade there have been several serious, well-funded attempts at tablet computers that failed - all but vanishing from memory in the process. Apple found the right combination of technology, interest, and timing.

I'm simply not excited about this technology because it seems like just an improvement over the incandscent / halogen bulb. I think it has potential for three key reasons - spectrum (can potentially produce any shade of visible light), apparent heat immunity, and the countless millions of recessed can fixtures out there. Its efficiency at ~30 lm/watt and its 10k hour rated lifespan are somewhat unexciting.

If it catches fire in the market, it will be beneficial from an energy-efficiency perspective since it's nearly triple the efficiency of plain incandescents and more than double the efficiency of A19-footprint halogens. It's all about eliminating the least-efficient sources.

My hat's off to this company if they can salvage a CRT plant into a lighting plant. That's inspired genius - especially if they can do it by and large with existing capital equipment.
 
Last edited:

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
I'm simply not excited about this technology because it seems like just an improvement over the incandscent / halogen bulb.............. Its efficiency at ~30 lm/watt and its 10k hour rated lifespan are somewhat unexciting.

Yeah, I would agree. I think many of us here at CPF are waiting for something completely groundbreaking.......a paradigm shifting technology. It may still happen. In the meantime I find it interesting to watch the different approaches unfold.

In one of the videos from this company one of the executives makes an interesting point. He talks about how CFLs have been under development for 20 years (it's more like 30 actually) and LEDs have been around awhile now as well, whereas ESL technology is quite new. He says that in a few years this technology should see many improvements. Maybe he's right. In one of the videos they show an earlier prototype and mention that the product they are bringing to market is smaller, lighter and more efficient. It seems reasonably impressive for the first product they've brought to the marketplace even if it's not the ultimate lightbulb. It is certainly not beyond the realm of imagination that they will eventually be able to increase the efficiency and lifespan of their technology further, perhaps by several levels of magnitude. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:

blasterman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
1,802
It's just one of perhaps a hundred different types of 'remote phosphor excitation' technologies I've seen lately. Just a different wavelength.

They've figured out how to make the components cheap enough for Asian plants to re-tool from conventional CFL. Basically it rides between induction and conventional fluorescent technology.

Efficiency is a big problem with these.
 

EZO

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
1,431
Location
Vermont, USA
I've followed a few attempts over the years to come up with a bulb like this. The most interesting used a carbon nanotube electron emitter. As far as I know, it was not perfected but I don't know if the design is still being worked on. One day, carbon nanotube field emitters may be the answer to the efficiency problem in a light bulb of this design. It's interesting that VU1 doesn't say what they use for their electron emission device in their bulbs.

These types of nanotube emitters are being used in the development of new flat panel displays know as field emission displays (FED) and the company that holds the major patents was involved in early lighting designs using carbon nanotubes.
 

2xTrinity

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
2,386
Location
California
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.

A remote phosphor LED with 150 lumens/watt, and ~80% efficient drive electronics to power the blue LED, is consuming under 5W to make 600 lumens. (with Cree's 200+ lm/W LED in the lab, I believe real products with these numbers or better will be commercially feasible in ~5 years) And about half of the waste heat in my example will be spread out over the phosphor layer, so even passive cooling inside a "can" fixture might be feasible with such low power consumption. (whereas ~15W CFLs tend to cook in those situations)

I personally don't like the recessed can fixtures anyway. I'd rather see a completely novel purpose-built "remote phosphor" LED fixtures hit the scene.
 
Last edited:

pderas

Newly Enlightened
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1
When CFLs first came on the scene they were much more expensive than they are today; more expensive than $19.95 each. Thanks to state and utility company subsidies they are affordable now. Vu1's R30 is likely to qualify for the same level of subsidies down the road making them very affordable. The price will also become more competitive as Vu1 gears up production.

Comparable quality LED lamps are considerably more expensive than the Vu1 R30, even now. They have dropped about 1/3 in price since introduction of the first high quality LED recesses lamp replacement, the CREE LR6 has gone from $130 to $88. Still $88 is well beyond what most consumers will spend for a replacement lightbulb.

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.

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.

While this is interesting new technology, I'm just not seeing where it fits in. It's way more expensive than CFLs, and about the same as LED. In return for the extra expense it offers neither higher efficiency nor greater lifetime (11,000 hour lifetime is mediocre by today's standards). Honestly, to me anyway it seems like a solution in search of a problem.
 

beerwax

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
447
these might look good. the glass would glo so id assume you get a nice even light and the shape is nice. 2 things that cfl and led can struggle with.
 
Top