Svarovski wants to make LED's better

[laur]

This is an interesting article about Svarovski wanting to use their glass crystal technology in LED's:

1) Here is an excerpt from the first paragraph:

Who would have thought that Svarovski had a semiconductor division? We didn’t know that it has a division called Swareflex that wants to turn LED lighting around by using pure glass, rather than plastic.

2) Here is the URL for the whole article:

http://www.techeye.net/chips/svarov...um=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+techeye+(Tech+Eye)

Enjoy,
laur

 

[laur]

Bump up to the top for anyone who hasn't had a chance to read the article on Svarovski and LED's

laur

 

[RobertK]

I'm curious to see what independent research shows. This could just be a gimmick, or he could be right (about the brightness over the life time).

If you could keep 99% of the brightness over the entire lifetime, then I think LEDs would be the absolute best choice for lighting.

 

[fyrstormer]

They're going to have a tough time beating Ultraclear Lexan, but hey, if they can, great.

 

[jtr1962]

99% lumen maintenance at 100,000 hours implies virtually unlimited life ( i.e. at least a few million hours, if not more ). The implications for this if Svarovski can pull it off are astounding. You can put lighting in structures like bridges which will still be shining bright 500 years later. The only caveat is the circuit driving the LEDs must be both serviceable and must protect them from surges, ESD, etc. It also helps if this circuitry is in a location where it can be easily replaced even if the LED is located very remotely. Anyway, that's my take on all this. Silicon-encapsulated LEDs at best have a useable life of a few hundred thousand hours by underdriving them. While that's fine for many types of lighting, it would be nice to have lighting for inaccessible structures which lasts as long as the structure, whether that be 50 years, 200 years, or even 6000 years like the Pyramids. Glass-encapsulated LEDs have the potential to make this a reality.

 

[TorchBoy]

Why would glass make any difference? I thought lumen maintenance was affected by die quality, and phosphor degradation mostly caused by heat.

 

[^Gurthang]

I'm assuming from the article that what Swar. is talking about is using glass as the substrate for the LED as well as the optic. If that's the case then I can see where the LED could maintain its output for a long long time.

If we use the analogy of computer technology and the "growth" of process speed and capacity then we're reaching the point in LED technology where computers were in the mid-late '80s. Not quite in the mainstream "everyone has one in their home" YET.... but rapidly approaching that point. Just my 2C worth... good read about Swarovsky.

 

[bshanahan14rulz]

My LEDs already have glass lenses. Even better, they have optically matched encapsulation gel to fill the gaps between the die and the glass lens. So there!
:nana:

And as far as glass as a substrate, my LEDs are on a Silicon-Carbide heatspreader/ESD protection device, which is mounted on a ceramic substrate. I think Silicon Carbide is a little better at conducting heat than glass is.

What is the main point of this article? Perhaps the author is behind the times?