Quantum Efficiencies

The_LED_Museum

*Retired*
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
19,414
Location
Federal Way WA. USA
15 lumens per watt on the white Luxeon.
I don't know how to convert this to an absolute quantum efficiency; though I suspect the figure to be around 10-15%.

The highest quantum efficiency (total number of electrons "converted" to light) so far was achieved in an experimental deep violet LED that reached around 25% including power supply losses; or around 28% by itself.

Incandescent bulbs have an overall efficiency of between 8 and 21 lumens per watt, with halogens being in the upper end of this range. Some types of photoflood bulbs (the kind that last an hour or two to on up to several dozen hours) can approach 35 lumens per watt.

The theoretical limit for white light is somewhere around 242 lumens per watt; chances are not good for any type of white light source anywhere in the near future to get even 1/4 of that value.

Colored light sources are a different story; the theoretical maximum for some colors is up to 680 lumens per watt (for one shade of yellow-green). A quarter of that would be a very impressive number, though looking at the world in a yucky pond scum green color isn't an appealing thought.

Don Klipstein has a page about this somewhere on his website, though I'll have to go looking for it.
 
So let's say that you hooked up a White Luxeon to 4 D batteries and an efficient halogen to another set of 4 D batteries, exactly the same. You then took a sodium cloud cooled to absolute zero (this is how a chinese female scientist stoppped photons with a phasing laser) and an opposite phasing laser to stop all photons coming in. You ran both lights until the batteries were drained and all the photons generated by each light was collected by it's own sodium cloud. which sodium cloud would contain more photons, the Luxeon's sodium cloud or the Halogen's?
 
Not the "hot" photons (IR) either, visible photons. and no, not looking for stray light, just all the light coming out from the front.
 
what is the quantum effieciency of a white Luxeon Star Vs. the quantum efficiency of the most efficient halogen bulb? (Quantum efficiency = the percentage of all the electrons used that were turned to visible light) wouldn't the halogen waste a LOT as heat?
 
ColdLight where did you hear about experiment? Seems completely bogus to me. You're j/k right?
confused.gif


If I remember correctly one of the laws of thermodynamics amplies that absolute zero can never be reached.

As for stopping photons using lasers, seems even more weird! My memories of quantum mechanics is very vague (I hated all the maths) but I'm 99.95% sure that its not possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>visible photons<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You've got everything you need. Lumens/watt tells you everything you need to know.

The amount of photons tells you very little as our eyes are more sensitive to certain frequencies. Luminous flux (in lumens) accounts for our eyes' spectral response.

[/rant]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ColdLight:
So let's say that you hooked up a White Luxeon to 4 D batteries and an efficient halogen to another set of 4 D batteries, exactly the same......You ran both lights until the batteries were drained and all the photons generated by each light was collected....which produces more photons, the Luxeon or the Halogen's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you choose equivalent devices and operating characteristics, then you can directly use the lumens per watt figure to compare any type of lighting technology. For example:

You can purchase a halogen at about any wattage you like, and drive the luxeon at about any current you like (even to destruction).

If you were to input exactly, say, 1 watt of power to the luxeon and used a halogen bulb rated at one watt and 5000 hours life then it might be a fair comparison. Say we hook both up to switching supplies like the one in the ARC light.

A one watt halogen bulb might be capable of 15 lumens/watt due to small size (rather than 20l/w for a big 50W bulb).

The current Luxeon are 15l/w for white, with soon to be released units at 22l/w. (Lab luxeons are at 30l/w).

So for current Luxeon devices and a small halogen bulb the number of visible photons in each bucket after your batteries died would be about the same or perhaps more for the luxeon since as the halogen's batteries died less VISIBLE light would be emitted (more infrared). Also, Luxeons get more efficient at lower currents.

For the new luxeons again at 1 watt input, the luxeon would win hands down.

For a 50W halogen against 50 one watt luxeons it would again be a tie at best using the new Luxeons, and you'd pay an enormous amount of money for the luxeons compared to maybe $2 for the halogen lamp.
 
someguy, I read about this experiment on Cnet.com i think. No, of course it wasn't perfectly absolute zero (impossible, for now), but it was close. and they used an opposite phasing laser to stop the photon(s) once it reached the super dense sodium cloud. before that, the slowest a photon ever got was 35mph it said.
 
From: ColdLight

To: anonymous male homo sapien (Someguy)

Researchers Briefly Bring Light Beam to a Dead Stop. Physics: Discovery may aid in the development of a new generation of powerful supercomputers.
BY THOMAS H. MAUGH II, Times Staff Writer

In a feat akin to catching lightning in a bottle, researchers have been able to reduce the speed of light from 186,000 miles per second to zero, trapping light beams for short periods of time before allowing them to burst forth again at full speed.

The achievement does not break any laws of physics, but it does illustrate the mysterious, bewildering world of quantum physics, where things are not always what they seem and where physicists often do the seemingly impossible.

The discovery, announced Thursday by two teams of researchers, represents a major step toward the development of so-called quantum computers, which would manipulate the intrinsic physical characteristics of atoms and be orders of magnitude more powerful than today's supercomputers.

"It's very exciting stuff," said physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto. "It makes it possible to store information carried by light for much longer periods of time than was thought possible in the past."

The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but it can be slowed as it passes through glass, water and a variety of other materials. If it were not, we would not have magnifying lenses, rainbows and a host of other phenomena. But glass or water slows the speed of light only by about a third, and physicists have been trying to retard it much more radically.

A major advance occurred two years ago, when a team led by physicist Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard University shined a pulse of laser light through a cloud of super-cold sodium ions and slowed the light to about 38 mph. In effect, the sodium cloud acted like thick molasses that grabbed photons of light and slowed their passage by a factor of more than 10 million.

Now Hau's group and a team led by Mikhail D. Lukin and Ronald L. Walsworth of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge have independently gone that achievement one better. They have brought the light pulse to a complete stop before allowing it to burst forth once again. In the experiments, a pulse of light half a mile long enters a chamber that is only a fraction of an inch wide; it is slowed so drastically that all of the beam enters the thin chamber before any begins to exit.

The process is similar to cartoons in which a bulky person runs behind a very thin tree, disappearing for a few seconds before reemerging on the other side.

Both research groups used clouds of metal atoms cooled to a few-millionths of a degree above absolute zero. Lukin's group used rubidium and Hau's used sodium.

Such clouds would normally absorb any light beam shining on them, destroying any information contained in the light. But using a precisely tuned laser called a coupling beam, researchers can alter the quantum states of the metal atoms to allow them to transmit the light, a phenomenon known as electromagnetically induced transparency.

While the light is passing through, however, it interacts with the spin state of the atoms, a phenomenon that slows its passage. The spin state of an atom is like a tiny bar magnet with a specific orientation in space. Changing that spin state is akin to pointing the magnet in a different direction.

In the new experiments, to be published later this month in Nature and Physical Review Letters, researchers shut off the coupling beam while all of the light pulse was in the chamber. They could halt the beam for as long as a millisecond before turning the coupling beam back on and allowing the light pulse to reemerge at full speed.

A millisecond may not seem like much, Steinberg said, but light moving at its normal speed would travel 186 miles in that period.

What actually happens to the photons of light during this period? In essence, they disappear, and the information they contained is stored in the spin states of the metal atoms. When the coupling beam is turned back on, that information is turned back into a light beam identical to the original in all its characteristics and information content, but somewhat weaker.

"Are they actually stopping the light? That is a semantic question," said physicist John Preskill of Caltech. "Fundamentally, what we should be thinking about is not whether it is photons or atoms, but whether it is information, which can be encoded in a variety of forms."

Steinberg noted that the same process was involved in earlier experiments that simply slowed light drastically. "We were confident in calling [the slowed photons] light then," he said, but if the photons have stopped, is it still light? Steinberg thinks it may be.

Although the technology demonstrated in the two experiments is far from being used commercially, it gives hope to scientists attempting to build the next generation of computers, which would work with light rather than electrons.

Calculations performed using light could occur much more rapidly, but making such calculations would require that the information contained in a light pulse be stored briefly at one or more points during the computer's operation. That has proved to be a difficult problem to overcome because of light's intrinsically elusive nature.

But Hau and Lukin-Walsworth have now shown that it is possible. The rest, as theorists like to say, is simply engineering.

Physics "doesn't get any more interesting than this," according to Eric A. Cornell of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

END

From: http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~amyb/light_trap.html
 
Quote::Such clouds would normally absorb any light beam shining on them, destroying any information contained in the light. But using a precisely tuned laser called a coupling beam, researchers can alter the quantum states of the metal atoms to allow them to transmit the light, a phenomenon known as electromagnetically induced transparency. ::
Is this a step towards the "transparent aluminium" from the Star Trek movie?
For 2020 we'll take the arc nuke in transparent lead
 
Yeah interesting stuff.... BUT (yes I am very stubborn!) technically the photons aren't stopped. Its sort of like a medium with an almost infinite index of refraction!

Too much physics going on here! Soon we'll be talking about silly stuff like the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect (which BTW I'm sure you'd be fascinated by!)
 
See, someguy, I wasn't kidding, so you can argue what you said about the infinite IoR to the really smart people who actually DID something about it not just say something about it. I would have no say.
 

Latest posts

Top