Come on, this is in a research lab. The LED was presumably a one-off, which cost tens of thousands of dollars. We could be years away from productizing this.I'd like to see a couple of datasheets, a NIST certification, etc.
If you want blue light, you do absolutely nothing (even though not a phoshpor exactly, the technology was described as converting blue to other wavelengths -- so remove all coatings, and you get 100% blue) It is conceivable that these coatings, espceailly if they produce an individual color (like a particular red or green wavelength), it might be possible to make a more efficient green or red by doping a blue LED with "green nanotubes" and filtering it.Yeah 300lm/w might not be plausible, hard to say for sure though.
You realize if this were true, the best way to get red, green, yellow, or blue light might be to use this process to make white light and put a color filter on top of that??
I've heard the 240 lm/W number throw around a lot, but nevery any details as to exactly what kind of white light being discussed. I'm guessing that refers to "equal power" between 400-700nm, or a broad spectrum 5500k. Using a warmer color temperature (3500-3000k) and a narrower band with less output in the "fringes" of the visual spectrum can dramatically improve the theoretical cap. I read one study which discussed theoretical max lumens watt for various forms of white. They found the best possible for a warm white with 80CRI (what this LED claims to be) is 400 lm/W. That means this LED would have to be 75% efficient. No matter what, those nanotubes won't be able to put out more energy in any color than the amount of energy it can absorb from blue light.Something is not right here, if I remember correctly ideal white light source is about 240 lm/w so 300 lm/w it a bit to high value for white light :]
Did I miss anything here? :thinking: