What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Gibson Guitar Pack view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - A Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) carol about the righteousness of the Gibson Guitar Pack.
92 Comments
- jggube, on 05/31/2009, -3/+35I'm not a scientist or anything, but I'm pretty sure you can't go wrong with lasers... especially the UltraFast variety; pretty soon they'll be able to make my light saber.
- shadowspawn, on 05/31/2009, -5/+31You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have bulbs with frickin' laser beams attached to their filaments!
- NiftyG, on 05/31/2009, -6/+22So, using a laser, a 100 watt light bulb (approx 1800 lumens) can comsume 60 watts, but the same brightness in a compact fluorescent still takes only about 20 watts. I wouldn't call that "super efficient."
- raober, on 05/31/2009, -0/+12Uhhh...read the rest of the article.
"Fortunately, despite the incredible intensity involved, the femtosecond laser can be powered by a simple wall outlet, meaning that when the process is refined, implementing it to augment regular light bulbs should be relatively simple." - mine4321, on 05/31/2009, -2/+12Thanks science guy.... pssst..... they're working on LEDs.... they make CFLs look like power wasters!
And you'll be able to pass some of them down to your grand children. - Mercedes383, on 05/31/2009, -0/+10Didn't Philips develop an incandescent bulb a year or two ago that was supposed to be quite efficient?
- TheFuzzyOne, on 05/31/2009, -0/+9It does use massive amounts of power. The energy used, however, is quite small.
- chongli, on 05/31/2009, -1/+9Tell that to the workers/miners in China who are suffering from severe mercury poisoning.
- InetRoadkill, on 05/31/2009, -1/+9I wonder about the surface stability of the filament. Since the tungsten is getting really hot, I would expect that any surface etching would fade over time from the thermal cycling.
- h8f8kes, on 05/31/2009, -2/+10Bring on the LED's. CFL's are a toxic nightmare.
- davidg11, on 05/31/2009, -6/+13Finally they found an answer....I dont like all the hype with CFL's..if you aren't seeing CFL's light through a lampshade, the light is ugly. I dont care how cool or warm the bulb is. Also the dimming CFL's suck big time. There's one dim level and then off. That's not a dimming bulb. And their flood lamp CFL's take forever to warm up to full intensity.
And finally, a 100W equivalent CFL bulb does NOT have the same amount of lumens as a 100W incandescent bulb. I dont care what they say. Put them side by side, and you'll notice the intensity is far less.
That said, half my house employs CFLs due to the energy cost savings. But I'd much rather have another source of cheap, more accurate, warm, light. I'm not replacing my "main" bulbs for light until then. - breakneckridge, on 05/31/2009, -0/+7See my comment above.
Power = Work / Time
(in this case it can be considered as energy / time)
So yes, the entire US electrical grid transmits an enormous amount of energy each second. But we're not talking about a second long burst of power usage, we're talking about a femtosecond long burst. A femtosecond lasts just 0.0000000000000001 as long as a second (that's 15 zeros after the decimal point). The entire united states electrical grid actually uses a VERY small amount of energy in that short a span of time. - Ferretman, on 05/31/2009, -1/+7I certainly would. They're probably cheaper to make from an energy perspective, and there's no mercury in them. While I personally don't mind the CFLs at all the light they make does bother some folks, and their relatively slow "get to full brightness" curve drives my wyfe nuts.
- bben46, on 05/31/2009, -1/+7They lied. The CFLs only last longer if you leave them on for long periods of time. So that counteracts the huge savings when used in - say a bathroom where the light is only on for 5 minutes, just long enough to get up to operating temperature, then turned off. That cuts the effective life by about two thirds. In other words, instead of lasting 3 years, they will burn out in one year.
- twomeyw23334, on 05/31/2009, -3/+9I don't know, I think those bulbs blow. I bought a bunch an installed in my home in the summer only to find that they barely turn on and take a while to warm up in the winter. I put one on my porch, it is joke in the winter, probably outputs 1 lumen. The other thing is, the bulbs apparently can't be installed upside down (like all the switched lights are in my house) because of thermal issues... which supposedly explains why mine have been dieing in under 1 year. They just aren't as easy on they eyes for reading lights either. I'm still holding out hope for LED lights.
- jasdf, on 05/31/2009, -0/+6NO!!!
- johndi, on 05/31/2009, -2/+7It was GE, but they had to abandon their efforts because too many countries foolishly banned incandescents light bulbs instead of setting efficiency requirements. Why make goals and let the big brains figure out a better way when a blanket ban will get you votes with no thought needed.
- breakneckridge, on 05/31/2009, -2/+7You really have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly, power is not at all the same thing as energy. Power is work or energy per time. Secondly, you apparently have no idea how short a femtosecond is. That's not to even mention the fact that this is still using unrefined proof-of-concept equipment, which will undoubtedly get much more efficient as it gets developed.
- chongli, on 05/31/2009, -2/+7I doubt the energy required to manufacture CFL bulbs is significant.
However, the mercury used and its serious environmental and health costs need to be taken into account as well. - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/31/2009, -0/+5In one second, you could etch all the light bulbs ever made or that need to be made for 10,000 years.
Take that 1 femtosecond and multiply it to get 1; 0.0000000000000001
= 1000000000000000 light bulbs.
We don't need that many, do we? - BradMajors, on 05/31/2009, -5/+10Stupid scientist. Doesn't he know that it is politicians who decide whether incandescent bulbs are more efficient than CFLs.
- rolf, on 05/31/2009, -0/+5Yes, either they reach or hoped to reach 4x more efficiency than a regular incandescent (which would be about on par with a CFL or regular Fluorescent), perhaps if it was a different technique, it could be combined and become 8x (1/2 energy usage of CFL)!
That would be pretty cool:) - overtoke, on 05/31/2009, -4/+8compact fluorescent bulbs are a travesty, a scam.
- ChiefUCF, on 05/31/2009, -1/+5Like George Carlin said:
"Ya ever notice how awful your face looks in a mirror in a restroom that has fluorescent light? Every cut, scrape, scratch, scar, scab, bruise, boil, bump, pimple, zit, wart, welt and abscess you've had since birth all seem to come back at the same time? And all you can think of is 'I gotta get the ***** outta here!'"
Admittedly, I was just looking for a chance to quote Carlin, but yeah...***** fluorescent light. It's ugly as *****. - DextramPennae, on 05/31/2009, -0/+4Folks, this is the reason you don't want Gov't interference in the market, whether it is mandates like law or regulatory rulings favoring one product over another or just simple tax breaks favoring a product.
Current and proposed rules favoring CFL bulbs are misguided and harmful to society and the environment. These rules could ensure that this advance never makes it to market. - rhedrick, on 05/31/2009, -6/+10Blatently innacurate.
Incandescent bulbs would still be grossly more inefficient than compact flourescents that use from between 20 and 33 percent the power. A 40 percent reduction would not put incandescent bulbs into the super efficient range.
Plus compact fourescents have closed any differences in light quality - you can get whatever color 'warmth' you desire.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_tips ... - NSResponder, on 05/31/2009, -3/+7What I want to know is after this treatment, how do these filaments compare to untreated filaments for durability?
-jcr - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/31/2009, -0/+4Most of my bulbs stay on for a minute or two, I only keep a few on all the time. So I'd do a lot better with this new incandescent, because all Fluorescent lights use most of their power to start up. So at less than a half hour of use -- the upgraded Incandescent is going to be a bigger power saver and last longer.
Fluorescents only "really shine" in tests where they are on continuously.
They are also more fragile. - inactive, on 05/31/2009, -1/+5thats what they call an escalade hybrid.
- rolf, on 05/31/2009, -2/+6If a CFL was so expensive to manufacture energy-wise, it would be reflected in the price. Manufacturers don't get free energy from some mystical source. Even China doesn't get coal, oil or Uranium from the world market free - their electricity costs $$ as well. As it is, a typical 23w (100w equivalent) CFL is about $2.50 each, some high end ones like the Sylvania Micro Minis $4.50 each.
GE's calculator tells me 1 should save $60 over its life. Using simple proportions in wattage difference, compared to this newer bulb, a CFL should still save $29 in energy over it's life.
Hopefully, this laser technique perhaps can be refined or combined with others to make something more efficient than a CFL and if it gives decent light, I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon. But by itself it doesn't yet. - diptheria, on 05/31/2009, -1/+5It's not blatantly inaccurate. You are just changing the point of comparison (and you aren't alone in this fallacy). 60 watts as compared to 100 watts for an incandescent bulb is a 40 watt savings. That is a significant energy savings. That is what the article is talking about. The article doesn't claim they are more efficient than a CPF...so why are you making this comparison. And ultimately the article is really about the technology and new applications…
- twomeyw23334, on 05/31/2009, -2/+5You have to consider where that power is coming from.... Captain Planet
- h8f8kes, on 05/31/2009, -0/+3True, but so do solar panels and your computer. The reality is some resources will have to be used to make things. The question then is what is the cost vs. benefit?
- 120decibel, on 05/31/2009, -3/+6Could someone tell him about LEDs please!
Hate to be a spoiler but I think he is running in to a (backwards facing) dead end! - inactive, on 06/01/2009, -0/+3OK, but CFL's are way more efficient than that and LED's are more efficient than CFL's. Why bother with this implementation at all?
- matrixbandit, on 05/31/2009, -2/+5Indeed. I own a few hand held lasers, but they are the normal speed variety, and by normal speed variety, I mean that they don't violate the fundamental law of physics known as the speed of light. FTA: "The key to creating the super-filament is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse. The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second." That isn't ultra fast, it's ultra brief.
And why is every word in the title capitalized, while some two word pairs are grouped into a single word while maintaining the ridiculous capitalization? Maybe I Am Alone InThinking This But It Just Seems ALittle Obnoxious To Write ThisWay. - FireSlash, on 05/31/2009, -0/+3The high mercury problem is being worked on. I believe it was EcoSpiral who was making those, and they're not insanely priced (Try http://store.altestore.com/Lighting-Fans/Compact-F ... )
Granted these bulbs still use SOME mercury, it's a step forward. - chrisWhite, on 05/31/2009, -1/+4Humanity has found salvation at last. Not to be melodramatic or anything, but this is awesome!
- sageerrant, on 05/31/2009, -0/+3I love science so much.
We're using incredibly brief laser exposures to make rainbow metal. How is that not cool?
Forced flow (against gravity) surfaces? This guy's doing stuff that's rarely predicted in sci-fi. - HappyScrappy, on 05/31/2009, -1/+4I agree many of the "equivalent" bulbs are lies. But even when you bump it up to the same amount of light, you're still using about 1/3rd to 1/4 the power.
And I have many CFL bulbs that don't have ugly light. Also, warmup is a real issue, but good bulbs warm up in about 40 seconds. Yes, that's too long for some uses, but it isn't forever.
The dimmin on CFLs is annoying in that you can only dim to about half brightness. I don't know what's wrong with your bulbs that they only have a single dimming setting. The ones I have at least 30 I would say, they appear to be continuous, just with an annoyingly high cutoff where they just go to off when I want them to instead go a bit dimmer. But in general, I have to say that the reason I most look forward to LED bulbs is because they will dim better. - HappyScrappy, on 05/31/2009, -3/+6That wouldn't be a power sipper. It would still be taking 2-3x power as much as a CFL.
- MrBogard, on 05/31/2009, -0/+3I don't even understand how someone could bury CFL hate.. unless they manufacture them!
- CivicTV, on 08/14/2009, -0/+3Report this *****.
- benologist, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2To be fair the difference is only what direction I hold it in. :(
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/31/2009, -2/+4Yeah, agree with bben46 -- CFLs are good in situations where you don't have lots of changes; high humidity, cold, weather, or turning the bulb on or off all the time.
Most of my bulbs stay on for a minute or two, I only keep a few on all the time. So I'd do a lot better with this new incandescent, because all Fluorescent lights use most of their power to start up. So at less than a half hour of use -- the upgraded Incandescent is going to be a bigger power saver and last longer.
Fluorescents only "really shine" in tests where they are on continuously. - BrownieMix, on 05/31/2009, -1/+3I need high wattage lights that give off tons of heat for my pet lizard.
- imkidred, on 06/01/2009, -0/+2So a CFL 100w uses like 14w and this laser laden bulb 100w will take like 60w and it's a news worth story?
- flibblesan, on 05/31/2009, -1/+3Thank you for your insight, Professor.
- cliffzdude, on 05/31/2009, -2/+4You're confusing a lightsaber with the fleshlight you made yourself.
- Nephersir7, on 06/01/2009, -0/+2Bring the LEDs or STFU
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is