WOW! 3000+ Lumen led possible!

[AlexGT]

According to this research published in Scientific american this is possible!:wow:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=5BED2E76-E7F2-99DF-3A1C740338CE5666

Quote from the Scientific American text, page 4:
"Plasmonic materials may also revolutionize the lighting industry by making LEDs bright enough to compete with incandescent bulbs. Beginning in the 1980s, researchers recognized that the plasmonic enhancement of the electric field at the metal-dielectric boundary could increase the emission rate of luminescent dyes placed near the metal's surface. More recently, it has become evident that this type of field enhancement can also dramatically raise the emission rates of quantum dots and quantum wells--tiny semiconductor structures that absorb and emit light--thus increasing the efficiency and brightness of solid-state LEDs. In 2004 my Caltech colleague Axel Scherer, together with co-workers at Japan's Nichia Corporation, demonstrated that coating the surface of a gallium nitride LED with dense arrays of plasmonic nanoparticles (made of silver, gold or aluminum) could increase the intensity of the emitted light 14-fold. "

So take a SSC P4 at current 240 Lm at 1 amp times 14, 240 x 14 = 3360 Lm!!!

The future looks bright!

AlexGT

 

[MacTech]

Hmm, so an LED capable of throwing out a Thor intensity beam.....

call me skeptical, it'd need some *serious* heat-sinking at the very least, and i'd imagine the lifespan of the emitter would be quite short as well

it *may* be theoretically possible, but certainly not at our current tech level

that said, i'd *like* to be proven wrong here.....

 

[flash_bang]

WHOAH! that sounds verrrrrrrrrrrry cool! Maybe we'll see the power of the Surefire Hellfire in the form factor of an M3T! Alllll right!

have a good one,
Flash

 

[AlexGT]

I'll take the P1D size with 1500 lumens please!

 

[flash_bang]

In referance to the P1D size, I do think that would be awesome, but otoh, I hope we're not measuring runtime in seconds...

 

[Cydonia]

Well, all we can really say for certain is... the future is going to be filled with very bright and efficient LED light sources. It's interesting to imagine the possibilities. 5 years from now there shall be some very efficient cool running LED's that's for sure. What their output will be in Lumens is anyone guess. I'm more interested in the cool running efficiency potential along the way... and how close to theoretical limits technology can take this. Will big M*glites still be around in 10 years? I 'd say so. What kind of drop in will you be able to buy for $30? Something so efficient and cool that 1000 lumen is possible? Probably.

 

[johnny13oi]

I thought 14 fold is different than 14 times. 14 fold is much much much higher than 14 times right? Because isnt something that is 2 fold 4 times bigger and 3 fold 8 times bigger? I know the explanation is stupid and not how it is described but if you fold a piece of paper twice you have 4 layers and such.

 

[flash_bang]

I was not under the impression that "folds" are like powers, more like coefficients, I think
have a good one,
Flash

PS, correct me if I'm wrong up above ^^^

 

[mdocod]

um.. sorry to bust your bubble but... if you took the cree.. and multiplied it by 14 in output, then it would be making ~1400lm/W... sorry, this breaks the law of conservation. It will never happen, (ever, seriously, EVER)... white light conversion peaks at around 250lm/w... (if I remember correctly)... the article claiming a 14 fold increase musta been using some really crapy LEDs to test this on.

 

[65535]

a 14 fold increase on 2 lumens = 16384 lumens they make be able to make uber high lumen efficiency, but they can't use the proper math terms, :shrug:

 

[liveforphysics]

mdocod- You are confused with the unit of efficiency (Lm/W), and intensity (lux).


BTW- from WordNet:

The adjective fold has one meaning:

Meaning #1: (used in combination) multiplied by a specified number



I personally think that fold SHOULD be a power function, as would be the relationship between folding an object and the rate which layers increase, however, I'm not the guy that gets to make up the definations of things.

 

[flash_bang]

ah ha! Well, I checked on wikipedia, and it said that it was more like exponents than just multiplication. I think in speech we say 2 fold when it's two times as much, but in science it would be four times as much. Strange thing, the english language, eh?
have a good one,
Flash

 

[liveforphysics]

Perhaps you can help me find which Wikipedia article you saw which had the definition you list?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Fold)
Jump to: navigation, search
Fold may refer to:

Look up Folding in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.an enclosure for sheep, a sheep pen, aka sheepfold or sheepcote [1]
Fold (higher-order function), a family of higher-order functions in functional computer programming
fold catastrophe, one most basic objects in Singularity theory.
fold (geology)
above the fold
Fold or folding may refer to:

in computer programming:
case folding is a term denoting the conversion of all characters in a string to lower- or upper-case
code or text folding
folding, in poker, the act of withdrawing from a hand rather than meeting the bet
origami, the art of paper folding
pattern welding, the folding of metal
protein folding
Folding@home
bankruptcy
aliasing

 

[PAB]

ah ha! Well, I checked on wikipedia, and it said that it was more like exponents than just multiplication. I think in speech we say 2 fold when it's two times as much, but in science it would be four times as much. Strange thing, the english language, eh?
have a good one,
Flash

Um... you are aware that there is a great deal of mistaken information on wikipedia? I always understood it was the same as multiplication. My professors always used it that way. That's what it says in the dictionary.

edit: source information: Webster's Encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the english language 1989; dilithium Press Ltd. page 550

 

[liveforphysics]

Let's not bag on Wikipedia here, I just read through all of the "fold" related articles and nothing mentions anything like what he claims he saw.

As far as "its use in science" goes, after an EE, and ME, along with chem, physics, and math minors, I've never encountered any meaning other than a coefficient.

Like I said above, I would personally prefere if it were the relationship between folding an object and the rate which layers increase, but for some reason "Luke's Make-believe Dictonary" never caught on.

 

[johnny13oi]

Sorry for bringing on this argument, I just could have sworn I learned it that way when i was younger but then after that no one used it that way. I do know that it is used as a multiplication meaning but I did recently ask a professor if fold is different and higher than multiplication and they said yes.

 

[TORCH_BOY]

3360 Lumen Thats efficient,

 

[nutz_about_lights]

Gosh when is this all going to stop so I can settle on a decent light? :laughing:

 

[AlexGT]

3360 lumen in a variable brightness light would be decent enough for me to settle down. He he he

 

[Ra]

I thought 14 fold is different than 14 times. 14 fold is much much much higher than 14 times right? Because isnt something that is 2 fold 4 times bigger and 3 fold 8 times bigger? I know the explanation is stupid and not how it is described but if you fold a piece of paper twice you have 4 layers and such.

Didn't you mean: Something 3 fold is 9 times bigger ! :lolsign:

But more serously: 3000 lumens led's are quite possible, but like mdocod said, there are those laws of energie that state that If you would convert 1 watt into light, you cannot have more then about 652 lumens (monochromatic green).. With a white lightsource, its much less, about 240 lumens (not shure, if anyone has more detailed figures, feel free to step in !!)

So it is possible, but it would just operate at much higher wattages then our leds do..


Regards,


Ra.