The lightbulb has remained virtually unchallenged since Edison invented it more than a century ago, but now scientists believe that zinc oxide—the same chemical that keeps diaper rash at bay—could provide a much-needed alternative to the inefficient lights that dominate our homes. In its crystalline form, zinc oxide can be used to make a light-emitting diode (LED) that could convert electricity to light 10 times as efficiently as the tungsten filaments used in today’s incandescent bulbs. It also lasts 10 times as long.

Tungsten shines white only when heated to 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit, an energy-sucking process that converts just 5 percent of electricity to visible light. “A zinc-oxide-based bulb, on the other hand, doesn’t require heat to produce light,” explains physicist David Look of Wright State University. And it glows brighter and more efficiently than other LEDs, because it emits mostly ultraviolet light, which is easily converted to visible light. Switching from tungsten to light sources like zinc oxide could reduce global electricity consumption for lighting by more than 50 percent.

The catch? The conversion will require expansive infrastructure changes, which the industry may be slow to embrace. But the long-term financial incentives, Look says, will be hard to ignore. Upgrading to zinc-oxide LEDs could help save Americans more than $35 billion a year.

INSTEAD OF COPYING & PASTING TO INCREASE YOUR POST COUNT, PLEASE WRITE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS IN YOUR OWN WORDS...
MANY OF THIS MEMBER'S POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED...
THEY ARE CONSIDERED SPAM...
Googlue

 

 

 

Reply

The question is, do the electicity companies -want- this change to happen. It seems like it'll be just like all the promises of more efficient cars, and cars that don't even require petrol... you hear about them for a while, and then never hear another word.

It doesn't matter how good it is for society, the big companies' profit seems to always prevail.

Reply

well, fluorescent bulb already are about 2-3 times more efficient and about 10 times more lasting than incandescents, they are used all over the place where electricity is expensive and virtually no home in the US where electricity is cheaper. And they don't even need a different infrastructure.

Reply

LED lights are definitely more efficient than standard light bulbs. The only thing is that they're more expensive to make and they also do produce lots of heat during use. LED's are already used in most streetlights and hopefully soon they'll be used more in homes.

Reply

I think you are heavily confusing your lighting. LEDs are the coolest lighting on the market - thats what makes them so efficient. Instead of wasting energy on heating a gas or a thin wire, the most energy goes into producing light. Also, street lights don't use LED's; they just are powerful enough yet. Instead streetlights use a type of HID lighting involving mercury and sodium vapor...I'd explain how the light actually worked, but I think it would be a waste of time (unless someone really wants me to). Anyhow, HID bulbs do give off massive amounts of heat - stadium lighting for example. The point is, I believe you are confusing the realtively small, underpowered (at the moment), LED with the older, highly established Sodium phosphorus bulbs.

 

 

 

Reply

The "good ol'" tungsten light bulbs, besides being energy inefficient, they also emit non-standard light. If you carefully look at a white painted wall with one of these light bulbs turned on, you will notice that the wall is kind of yellowish. Being exposed to such light can really do damage to your eyes in time. One more thing that still gets to me is when I look at one of these light bulbs (when turned on), it's just like looking directly at the sun, and it really does a number on your eyes.

Can't wait for those LEDs to roll in!

Reply

Can I ask what you mean by "non-standard" light? Light is a type of electromagnetic radiation...there is no "standard". Just different frequencies and wave lengths. Below visible light is infrared, and above it is UV. You implied that the wall looks yellowish.... the color pattern when broken down looks red orange yellow green blue violet. If you see a yellow tint, then the light is producing more reds and yellows (towards the infrared). So, considering what I've said and the fact that you said "a normal light will damage vision", so will any heat emitting stove coil - lit up or not.

By the way...the sun is a giant nuclear reactor. It produces the highest end of the spectrum for electromagnetic radiation that we know of; gamma radiation. This level of energy can only be achieved in nuclear reactions. The only way we live through it is the magnetic fields of our planet. What I'm saying is, it isn't the "non-standard" lighting that hurts your eyes, it the amount of energy hitting your cornea, burning it.

Reply

there may be some disadvantages of using incandescent bulb, but there is one thing that it is helpful to us. we use incandescent bulbs instead of flourescent lignt at our bathroom because it lights faster than the flourescent. it doesn't need statrers to ignite the light. Just imagine if you are running to your bathroom to take a pee... and you really need to get there fast or else you'll explode your piss at your pants, incandescent bulb could prevent you from accident because you will be able to see everything cleary and fast. I don't want to wait for the flourescent light to turn on first before entering a room also.. because it takes a little to for that to do. just my two cents.

Reply

lol, I have fluorescent bulbs in my bath room, and have never had a problem with that. But anyway, the thread isn't dealing with fluorescent bulbs, they use gas to light the room. The topic is on LED. They light up faster then any iridescent light could hope to. Simply because they don't require the heat of a wire to reach operating temperature. They just immediately emit visible light. This is why many auto manufactures are now using LED brake lights; they are more vivid and give the person behind you slightly better reaction times.

Reply

English is a foreign language to me, I couldn't find a better way to express myself. By using that expression, I am stating that the tungsten light bulbs emit such electromagnetic radiation (as you state) at a such frequency (which is measured in trillions of Hz, as far as I remember) which makes my wall look a little bit yellow, but, when lighted by a fluorescent light source, it is not.
My point is that the fluorescent light bulbs emit more natural light that the tungsten light bulbs.



Yes. And I experience that every time when I look at the tungsten light bulb directly (if the bulb's glass casing is clear, which is usually the case).

I think that you have heard that it is not good for your eyes when reading in a heavily lighted room, and also, that is not good for your eyes when reading in a poorly lighted room... Try staring into your CRT monitor while the whole screen is green, or blue, or YELLOW (which is the case here). Is it pleasant? I think not. Being in a room where one color is very much dominant than the others is not pleasant nor healthy.

Reply