MAR 21

White streetlights have no safety benefits over yellow ones at all. Yellow light is indeed ugly, but it's also very soft and not very disruptive. If you drive through a bright "natural" stretch of road and are then plunged into darkness, death will be waiting for you by a telephone pole.

And there's some anecdotal evidence that drug users stay away from yellow light because they can't see their veins in it ;)

Of course, natural light is preferable in almost any other situation!

This technology doesn't sound all that different from traditional fluorescent. The only change appears to be in how the magnetic field is applied.

The public safety issue I was referring to was that the police hate HPNa lights because they can't tell what color anything is. This might sound trivial, but it's the reason why HPNa lamps are being replaced with less efficient lamps all over the country. If you can't tell what color a car is, it's hard to catch the bad guys.

Electrodeless lamps such as those that www.ceravision.com make have lots of advantages for street ligting:
* They last much longer than flourescent and sodium 2-3X (less waste) and have a constant output over their life
* They may only be as efficient as yellow sodium but because the eye is much more sensitive at low illumination to the blue end of the spectrum you need much less light to get the same perceived illumination - and so less power.
* They produce a continuous spectrum which makes for really natural looking light unlike sodium or fluorescent

Electrodeless lamps such as those that www.ceravision.com make have lots of advantages for street ligting:
* They last much longer than flourescent and sodium 2-3X (less waste) and have a constant output over their life
* They may only be as efficient as yellow sodium but because the eye is much more sensitive at low illumination to the blue end of the spectrum you need much less light to get the same perceived illumination - and so less power.
* They produce a continuous spectrum which makes for really natural looking light unlike sodium or fluorescent

800 lumens at < 8 watts, in a standard sized bulb:

http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/geobulb-led-light-bulb.aspx

Well, it doesn't ship till May, but the Lumix bulb won't either.

'taint cheap. It'll get there.

Taiwanese researchers have recently succeeded in extracting the light emitting compounds from golow worms and mounted them in a bayonet type lamp holder. To recharge these lights you unscrew them and soak them in sugar solution over night.

LG already sells a sulfur plasma lamp. Plasma lighting is currently illegal in the united states...they say it's because the magnetron interferes with cell/wireless signals. But i've lived in Korea, and i can tell you that Koreans don't let anything interfere with cell signals.

They are not amazingly more efficient than standard HID lamps when they stand alone; however, the Smithsonian Air & Space museum replaced 94 HID (i'll assume the standard 250 Watt metal halide) with three 1000 Watt sulfur plasmas, each connected to a 27 meter, inert light tube. They did this before the bulbs were outlawed.

The magnetrons only have a life span of 13,000 hrs or so, but they suffer little quality degradation over their lifespan...and connected to tubes means changing three magnetrons rather than however many bulbs. (that would include significantly less manufacturing of bulbs)

Their best applications would be large, indoor lighting situations like grocery stores, etc., where light tubes can be used. Research also suggests that they outperform HID's for horticultural use, without negative, heat issues (because it is contained in the magnetron rather than emitting from the bulb). Plants like red spectrum light for flower/fruit production, but i believe that the sulfur plasmas can be blended to full or blue spectrum. The horticultural pictures i've seen all show vegetative growth, which is done under bluer light...if possible.

800 lumens at < 8 watts, in a standard sized bulb = 100 lumens/watt, while Luxim is 144 lumens/watt, a 40% advantage. I doubt their current achievements are , and they 'are' available now.

At this stage however LEDs and Luxim aren't direct competitors, as Luxim is going after high intensity lighting applications; lumen levels that LEDs cannot achieve, especially in a single bulb (i.e. 170W lamp delivering 25,000 lumens).

LEDs are fantastic in lower output applications, but in comparison to LiFi they lack brightness, and remain pricey.

As for Ceravision, I haven't seen any evidence of a commercially viable product on the market, and a little searching on the internet seems to indicate their IP position is tenuous.

The C. Crane Geobulb doesn't 'win the race' while priced at $120US.

Compact fluorescents are still in the lead when one factors in efficiency and price. (The difference between $120 and $1 buys a lot of electricity over the lifetime of the bulb.)

The C. Crane Geobulb doesn't 'win the race' while priced at $120US.

Compact fluorescents are still in the lead when one factors in efficiency and price. (The difference between $120 and $1 buys a lot of electricity over the lifetime of the bulb.)

On the inTARnet wun duz not kneed 2 dubble clik.

Luxim's patent position is reconfirmed.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080326/aqw086.html?.v=44

"Plasma lighting is currently illegal in the united states..." - this is simply no true.

Luxim is not competing with CFL, as CFL cannot begin to deliver the same raw volume of light at any input power. CFLs will continue to thrive until LED pricing comes down and efficiency goes up. However from what I've read/researched LEDs are at least 3 yrs behind the power/efficiency curve when compared to Luxim.

In the end, there is no one technology that serves all needs or markets. There is room for all to thrive until the next technology breakthrough, and we all that every (current) cutting edge technology will indeed be obsoleted in time. The cycle continues....

As someone who sells light bulbs for a living, I find this advancement to be exciting. Currently, we sell quite a few compact fluorescent bulbs, but many of our customers have concerns about their mercury content. If this technology were to become scaled down to a size that could be utilized by the average consumer, it would be far more efficient (in terms of lumens per watt) than compact fluorescents, and presumably less toxic.

from what I have read Luxim uses Hg in most of there white light sources. Also it appears thath the system efficiency is only 80-to-90 lumens per watt (many ceramic metal halide lamps with electronic ballasts are more efficient). The life numbers still need to be proven for their LIFI 8000. 30,000 hours for the system is doubtful with high power loading, even without electrodes.

It's coming, period. Full spectrum efficient lighting and eventually the price will compete $perWATT.