JUN 10

With all the new developments in CFL, LED and HID technology and the fact that countries are lining up to ban them, it's seemed certain that incandescents are on a death march. But wait! What if traditional bulbs could be made just as efficient as CFLs and keep their cheap price tag?

That's what scientists at the University of Rochester have discovered is possible and, yes, it involves lasers. A team of researchers have come up with a process that makes a 100-watt bulb consume less energy than a 60-watt bulb by creating nano- and micro-scale structures on the tungsten filament. The structures make the tungsten more effective at radiating light and the bulb much more efficient.

The structures are made on the filament by an ultra-intense femtosecond laser pulse that lasts only quadrillionths of a second. The power of that minute burst of laser is equivalent to the entire grid of North America, yet the laser can be powered by a wall outlet, meaning implementing these lasers into manufacturing should be a simple task.

The process can be used not only to make the light brighter, but to also change the hue of the light by manipulating those nano-structures. If this process is commercialized, all those who want the efficiency of CFLs, but hate the color and price could finally have their perfect bulb.

via University of Rochester

Comments (14)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

tooo late!
written by bigspud, June 10, 2009

hey,hey, goodbye,
walmart is selling led bulbs here.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jim, June 10, 2009

Funny that, all of sudden with more efficient lighting that these bulbs are getting more efficient. I love how that works. Good riddance.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Zara, June 10, 2009

Hm, I think you may need to rewrite this: "The power of that minute burst of laser is equivalent to the entire grid of North America, yet the laser can be powered by a wall outlet"

so it doesn't sound like the laser is defying the laws of physics :)

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Mercury?
written by Kirsten, June 10, 2009

My main beefs with CFLs have been that (a) they do not fit interchangeably in all lamps that use incandescents, and (b) they contain mercury. I presume these new incandescents would not contain mercury?

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Ummm...
written by Magnulus, June 10, 2009

Last I checked, a 20W CFL would be bright enough to replace a 100W incandescent, so a 60W lasered incandescent isn't really that impressive... Also, I'm not so sure they'd be all that cheap, considering the technology involved in creating them.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by mreagan, June 10, 2009

I hope not, they are the only ones made in USA. Have you read how to discard a CFL bulb if it breaks? scary. I sure won't buy anything else after I started noticing all my money was going to China.


http://ventobama.blogspot.com/

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by lalibrarylady86, June 10, 2009

I love the idea of a laser in my light bulb that also helps the environment.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

Trade-Off
written by Kirsten, June 10, 2009

I don't know. Only half the power savings of a CFL, yes, but none of the mercury. It doesn't sound like a CFL is necessarily the automatic winner. I mean that mercury has got to add up at some point when people start throwing out their CFLs.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by KenH, June 10, 2009

What a lame article. LEDs are the way forward.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Step in the right direction.
written by Dan Bossenbroek, June 12, 2009

One of the main stumbling blocks to the sustainabilty movement has been that many people just don't want to change the way they do things or what they buy. Some don't like the color of CFL's, others are concerned about the mercury they contain. LED's are great, but they too have a way to go. More efficient incandescent bulbs = a great step in the right direction.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by no one, June 12, 2009

It would be hilarious if through new technology incandescents become more efficient than CFL. Because of various laws it would require people to use less environmentally friendly bulbs. ... one of the hazards of governments trying to pick winners with rapidly changing technology.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Anonymous, June 17, 2009

"A team of researchers have come up with a process that makes a 100-watt bulb consume less energy than a 60-watt bulb"
how does a 100 watt bulb consume less than a 60-watt bulb? Am I missing something? It wouldn't be a 100 watt bulb then would it?

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by Marcel Geers, June 19, 2009

The problem pointed out above is what it is about.......we want to use less energy for our lighting. Thus, laws should be limiting the amount of electrical power needed per unit of light. That way you don't block future developments.

In the real world politicians don't think up limits such as banning incandescents or limits on W/Lumens. Those are designed by lobbists, looking to create a bigger market for their product.


LED lights consume less active power, causing your electricity bill to decrease. Yet, alot of them have very poor power quality in order to produce them cheaply, causing increased losses further on in the electricity grid.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Fred, June 30, 2009

Considering regular bulbs, also remember they dont last as long is that going to be saving much

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment