Can lasers save the incandescent lightbulb?
A new breakthrough may change the attitude that the incandescent lightbulb has had its day.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) have unquestionably gained popularity for their energy efficiency when compared to the traditional incandescent bulb. Millions of people around the world have been encouraged by politicians, governments, energy utilities, and even lightbulb companies themselves to phase out traditional incandescent bulbs in favor of CFLs (or even LEDs) to save electricity in the home.
But now researchers at the University of Rochester in New York say they've found a way to make an incandescent lightbulb more efficient.
Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester.
(Credit: University of Rochester)A group led by Chunlei Guo, associate professor of optics at the University of Rochester, has been testing the effects of ultra-fast lasers on the properties of metals and decided to try a tungsten filament (the tiny wire in the typical lightbulb).
The group blasted the tungsten filament with an ultra-fast short-pulse laser for a femtosecond. A femtosecond is to a second "what a second is to about 32 million years," according to the researchers.
The blast changed the properties of the surface metal on the filament so that it formed nanostructures and microstructures that enabled it to shine significantly more brightly while still using the same amount of electricity.
"We fired the laser beam right through the glass of the bulb and altered a small area on the filament. When we lit the bulb, we could actually see this one patch was clearly brighter than the rest of the filament, but there was no change in the bulb's energy usage," Guo said in a statement.
The change in the filament has enabled the incandescent light bulb to shine as bright as an average 100-watt bulb, but consume less electricity than the average 60-watt bulb.
Full details of the project, which was sponsored by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, will be published in the next issue of "Physical Review Letters."
In a software-driven world, it's easy to forget about the nuts and bolts. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgetry or industrial machines, Candace Lombardi examines the moving parts that keep our world rotating. A journalist who divides her time between the United States and the United Kingdom, Lombardi has written about technology for the sites of The New York Times, CNET, USA Today, MSN, ZDNet, Silicon.com, and GameSpot. E-mail her at candacelombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. 
It would be nice from a cost perspective also. If the bulb makers only had to add a laser like this to the production line, shooting the finished bulbs, maybe the cost would be minimal.
Also have questions as to how this laser affects the life expectancy of the bulb...
Have they tried modifying the entirety of the filament?
Have they monitored any change in lifespan?
Are there any differences in color temperature?
The color tmp issue is going to be a major one. The big problem most people have with CFLs is that they have a blue shifted light even on the 'soft white' bulbs. We seem to prefer a more yellow light.
If they improve the light bulb's efficiency by 80%, they barely reach that of compact fluorescents and still don't touch that of LED's.
This is nothing more than a very interesting effect that may prove very useful in thousands of applications - incandescent light bulbs are not one of them...
And congrats on your 5th grade math skills.
A CFL bulb is actually less expensive when you consider the amount of time a CFL bulb lasts.
Break a CFL bulb in your house, and you have a toxic chemical spill to deal with. And you can't dispose of the dead bulbs in the trash, either.
Clever, but you should read before trying to act smart.
The expense and complexity are for LED lighting solutions.
And to answer your riddle...none...CFL just sucks.
Besides, get some descent ones - they will last for 5-6 years.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Leds- come on people it's the 21st century use LEDS - AS FAR AS COST our products are outstanding
and have price points of $20 to $60 for a bulb that will definetly last for 50,000 hours (a decade)
par 20 - 38 fluorescent retrofits a-19 mr16 all dimmable Great efficiency Great CRI and CCTs
Help the planet & your wallet BUY QUALITY The solid state lighting pro
That said, CFL light is a lot more concentrated and hence hurts to look directly at compared to the regular fluorescents where the light is more evenly spread. Also, for general aesthetics (which 3400K, 4200K fluorescents are relatively better at than 6500K ones) and color rendering, incandescents are generally better
I doubt most people will believe this, I have been using LED arrays for 2 decades now - mostly for focused lighting. Agreed that LEDs have improved with time, despite their hype (and lab results) I have yet to see commercial LEDs that give out close to100 lumen/electrical watt that CFLs commonly do, and at a reasonable price. I am beginning to lose faith in LED as a general lighting solution. All the same, CFLs have their own issues - cost, mercury etc.
If the issues in the 1st line of my comment can be reasonably taken care of this thing would zoom! Cool!
- what is the position of Mrs Candace Lombardi about it ?
- what about the LED technology that seems promissing ...
It's wrong to ban light bulbs anyway
In fact all energy efficiency regulation, as in current House Bill, is wrong
see http://ceolas.net/#cc1x onwards
There is not any energy supply problem in society that justifies banning light bulbs or anything else:
1. Renewable energy sources already exist, and are increasingly deployed (solar, wind, wave, tidal, hydro, geothermal, biomass).
2. Nuclear energy is long-lasting and potentially renewable (short-term via breeder reactors, long-term as nuclear fusion).
3. As finite sources become scarcer, their price rises, reducing such consumption anyway, and the choice of renewable energy resources becomes more natural on the market place.
Taxes or subsidies can of course speed up the effect before then.
Emissions can be dealt with directly as described on
http://ceolas.net/#em1x onwards
Do light bulbs give out gases?
Unless you are a politician, the answer is no!
The incessant focus on "switching lights to save energy and money" is misplaced.
Consumers pay for the energy they use and should be free to use it as they wish, given that the supply is there.
All lights have advantages.
That is why they exist for people to choose.
Energy efficiency is one advantage.
Light bulbs need to have other advantages, or noone would buy them.
As it happens, light bulbs are overwhelmingly popular, bought 19/20 in the USA, 9/10 times in the EU, with similar popularity elsewhere.
Cheapness plays a big role - and why not.
But the idea that people avoid buying lights just because they are expensive is wrong - - or expensive alternatives to other products in the shops wouldn't be bought either.
Cheapness alone gives no repeated sales.
Ordinary light bulbs have a wide appeal because of appearance, a quick response also in cold conditions, a bright and broad spectrum light quality, are easy to use with dimmers and auto-switches, and can come in small sizes.
These are properties that to a greater or lesser extent no other light types share, including halogen lights, noting that halogen lights that are similar to ordinary light bulbs tend to be on the phase-out schedules anyway.
People spend half their lives under artificial lights.
One would expect politicians to respect the overwhelming choice of light people make - especially a choice made despite the extensive public campaigns not to buy such lights, and despite the promotion of fluorescent lights that are usually called "energy saving" lights.
Instead the popularity is used to justify bans, on the basis of energy savings made.
If there was a society need to save energy (there isn't), a light bulb ban would hardly be the first choice anyway, given the greater energy use of say boilers or heating equipment.
Light bulbs use about 3% of overall household energy and 15% of electrical energy in temperate climates, and replacement lights also use electricity.
More about savings and research figures from http://ceolas.net/#li13x onwards, more on the researched heat effect http://ceolas.net/#li6x
If light bulbs nonetheless needed to be targeted (they don't), then taxation is better for both government (income) and consumers (choice), see http://ceolas.net/#gg6x onwards
the action will be based on merit ! When people are slow adapters - I understand that
dvds or mp3 players I couldn't justify the cost vs benefits BUT regarding lighting
Leds 2009 high quality Leds (not the junk) thats whats in my house and my intelligent family
& friends houses ( we prefer $25.00 monthly bills & small carbon footprint)!!
the comment someone made is not true, about coal power use releasing more mercury than CFLs
contain:
"What people do not realize that burning coal to power a 100 watt incandescent bulb over its lifetime releases far more mercury into the atmosphere than the CFL contains"
This is a common misconception, since it assumes coal power dominates, and also that it's untreated, which doesn't happen nowadays in any state
see details and references
http://www.ceolas.net/#li19x
In a nutshell:
1. We know where the ever decreasing coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their mercury emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.
2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights are, and so we can't do anything about them.
compact fluorescent is outdated- really outdated ! lighting solutions are about the task
of photon mgmt -- Incans & cfls spread light in an ineffecient / illogical geometric
patterns -- Leds work and prices are coming down as effeciency increases....
Leds are solutions GREAT Solutions when the're made well and Guarenteed
for 5 years have cri #s of 88 or better, sslPro
- by kpm16 October 7, 2009 9:02 PM PDT
- Unless I missed it, no one has questioned the effects of the laser on the integrity of the tungsten filament. Filaments are designed to last a specific number of hours (life of lamp in hours). While the laser may improve light output it may be at the expense of the life of the light bulb. That would then create another energy efficiency question.
- Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)