Recent Comment
Share
Osram, in partnership with BASF, has reached two major milestones in their development of OLED lighting.
- They've developed an OLED that's able to yield 60 lumens per watt (lm/W), a much greater efficiency than conventional bulbs.
- This new OLED meets the international Energy Star SSL Standard for color requirements, a first for this lighting technology.
Osram revealed an OLED capable of achieving 46 lm/W last spring, so this is a pretty quick advancement in efficiency. While even greater efficiencies for OLEDs have been met, so far the Energy Star standard has not. This new OLED is within the acceptable band for color coordinates defined by Energy Star and is able to retain its white color at different levels of intensity.
This all means that a super-efficient and consumer-ready OLED product is getting closer. Osram is continuing to work on the technology with hopes of producing color-appropriate, 100 lm/W light tiles in the near future.
Hits: 11565
Comments (18)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Clark, December 02, 2008
It's neat to see the 'green' movement stretching to such innovative territory. I think it is particularly important for us, as consumers, to support ‘green’ business. For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.
-
- +0
-
-
written by haichen, December 02, 2008
@Alf: Burning all your PVC (you can find it everywhere) in your home, that's a real problem. Please, if you use so much nice chemical names, please write them nearly correct.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ron Mertens, December 02, 2008
Arif - OLEDs are actually considered quite green - without any bad metals like in CFL, or LEDs.
And also they are a COLD light source - actually no heat is made in OLEDs (which is why they can be extremely efficient) - no risk of burning!
Ron
And also they are a COLD light source - actually no heat is made in OLEDs (which is why they can be extremely efficient) - no risk of burning!
Ron
-
- +0
-
-
written by Shawn, December 02, 2008
Cold source or not, it is another new risk for firemen who respond to housefires. Just something new to train for I guess
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jesse Wilder, December 02, 2008
Boy those sure are some smart folk that come up with those ideas!
www.anonymity.cz.tc
www.anonymity.cz.tc
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jonathan, December 02, 2008
Yes it is something new to train for. But hopefully it will also mean less fires from old technology that won't have to be revisited as often, thereby allowing firemen to not be thinking as much about it and replacing that "hopefully unlikely event" with an "even more unlikely event". Any event that we are not familiar with will worry us, but if we can forsee the problems we can deal with them. The new technology will bring it's own set of problems, but we have to learn to deal with them in a responsible way. Meaning that we have to find a way to protect the people making them, protect the people (and environment) from the risk of the chemicals inside them and plan for the worst while hoping for the best. The process of perfecting technology should never end, no product is ever really finished. Use of the technology just has to be responsible.
-
- +0
-
-
written by dihydrogen_monoxide_kills, December 02, 2008
That "Aliphatic urethane acrylate oligomers" is plastic, and the amount of plastic in a OLED is probably MUCH less than the amount of plastic in your plasma TV. Or your PC monitor, or the keyboard, or dozens of other things around the house. Fact is most things put out nasty chemicals when you set it on fire. If I were you, I'd avoid setting it on fire, and have a good plan in place to escape when your hopefully plentiful smoke alarms go off.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sam Crutsinger, December 02, 2008
When a house is on fire, the firemen are wearing masks already. How would this make any difference? Your house is full of nasty chemicals that cause health problems. Got a bottle of bleach under your sink with a bottle of ammonia? If your house burns down and those bottles rupture and mix, you're looking at toxic nerve gas. Burning houses are full of lethal fumes. This is nothing new.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Eric, December 02, 2008
I agree with "dihydrogen monoxide kills" about the chemicals. Are the chemicals in these OLEDs really any more nasty than the chemicals in any other products we use?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Thomas, December 02, 2008
Water is actually the most lethal "chemical" known. Lack of clean water is a result of millions of deaths per year. Hurricane Katrina also caused massive damage. Yet, here we are worrying about a couple negligible chemicals in a substance we don't even have in our homes yet. I can rightly say, grow a brain you fucking retards. We have MUCH bigger things to worry about than a slew of dangerous chemicals that might not even be present in OLEDs in the future. As was said earlier, most households already have things like PVC, acetone (nail polish remover), bleach, ammonia, and many other dangerous substances.
But look at things as a whole. If OLEDs are able to produce 100 Lumens per watt, you could power a small TV over a USB cable. This would represent tremendous energy savings if even a tenth of homes replaced 1 TV with an OLED. This savings in energy would reduce dependencies on oil as a fuel source.
Overall, OLED's benefits would highly outweigh any harmful effects it might not even have in the future.
But look at things as a whole. If OLEDs are able to produce 100 Lumens per watt, you could power a small TV over a USB cable. This would represent tremendous energy savings if even a tenth of homes replaced 1 TV with an OLED. This savings in energy would reduce dependencies on oil as a fuel source.
Overall, OLED's benefits would highly outweigh any harmful effects it might not even have in the future.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ryoko, December 02, 2008
There is also another technology to compete against CFLS, LEDs and OLEDs which is called Electron Stimulated Luminescence (ESL) and is due to be released 1stQ 2009 by a company called "Vu1". The lamps are dimmable, very efficient and have no toxic chemicals. They look like regular bulbs and have the same color spectrum.
Which ever technology wins, it looks like incandescent bulb's days are numbered.
Which ever technology wins, it looks like incandescent bulb's days are numbered.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dan, December 03, 2008
Boy those sure are some smart folk that come up with those ideas!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Corey, December 03, 2008
These are thin films; The total volume is quite small. Your house has worse chemicals in it in much larger volumes. If your house burns down you have bigger issues then your OLED lights.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ben, December 03, 2008
Burning pine rosin creates nasty chemicals. In fact, BBQ sauce has nasty chemicals in it. Why do you think that smoking meat preserves it? It creates a poisonous layer that kills small microbes. We are much larger animals so we can digest this poison without too much harm.
-
- +0
-
-
written by robin, December 04, 2008
Boy those sure are some smart folk that come up with those ideas!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Erik, December 22, 2008
These are thin films; The total volume is quite small. Your house has worse chemicals in it in much larger volumes. If your house burns down you have bigger issues then your OLED lights...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Carl, April 30, 2010
This is a fantastic discovery. 60 lumens per watt is a substantial gain over traditional bulbs.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Aliphatic urethane acrylate oligomers, m- tetramethyl xylene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, methylene bis (cyclohexyl isocyanate) are very NASTY chemicals.
In the event of a house fire, or the OLED becoming overheated the householder is in SERIOUS trouble.