Long Live The Burning Wire! CRI For Everyone!

It happens every time…

It looks like, in our haste to mind each others’ business, we’ve allowed our political class to “ban” the burning wire quite ‘prematurely’.

Look what the Private Sector can do:

Return of incandescent light bulbs as MIT makes them more efficient than LEDs

Neener-neener-neeee-ner!!

Interference in our lives by the political class is a big-enough problem already; please don’t poison this thread with partisan screed! There’s a really good reason political arguments are strongly discouraged here. This guy does an adequate job of identifying the Root Cause of this particular problem:

MIT: Incandescents Now More Efficient than LEDs
Now they tell us…

This is not about “politics”; it’s about “manipulation”.

Our problem now is, do we continue to believe what we’ve been told, or do we accept the Real World in front of us?

If we have to accept high heat and current to get the light we need, can’t we have CRI too? Or is our future to be monochromatic views of the blisters we get touching our “cool-running” LEDs?

I want my CRI!!

But I’m just…

Dim

So which pill is it? Red or Blue….

Very interesting. We’ll see if and when this ever makes it to market

I banned energy saving bulbs in my house no good for us and the environment! i changed to LED and halogen i like the colour of the halogen better so warm!

Shut up and take my money!

The government is evil and the private sector won’t kill us for profit if we let them have free reign because all those they kill are dead to us

Nice try

Don’t blame the political class. If the efficiency of the “MIT incandescents” is high enough, no e.g. EU directive will prohibit selling them.

Or if the efficiency of regular bulbs is not high, but I want to pay the higher price of that inefficiency, I should be able to do that. Why should something that is 1,000,000 times more efficient than burning an oil lamp be prohibited just because something else more efficient comes along? Are oil lamps banned from manufacture due to incandescent bulbs being available? That is the hypocrisy of this situation, incandescent is not bad, just some people have decreed they are…

Illuminati confirmed?

I sure wish we were seeing even a tenth* as many breakthroughs as they announce, year after year.
Their PR department is excellent.

  • The rule of thumb I recall is that venture capitalists fund on average ten ideas to get one successful result.

indeed, its world renowned for a reason :bigsmile:

Lots of things which could be good for us have been made illegal or made to where they might as well be due to the economics needed to deal with them legally. The push for more efficient lighting is good for everyone; the problem is that the system is run by educated idiots who do not think deeply. They fail to see the implications, ramifications, depth, and scope of their actions and how the results they bring are not going to get them or anyone else what they really wanted. Then they will bring on more of the same to try to fix their previous errors making it even worse. Jefferson had it right- the best government is the least government- and this is but another example proving that principle.

Phil

A 60W incandescent bulb puts out ~800 lumens at 5% efficiency. At 40% efficiency that would be 7.5W instead of 60, i.e. ~107 lm/W… not outstandingly impressive. Probably will be sub par by the time this technology makes it to the market. If it ever does.

Around 100lm/W (if they mean what they say). Doesn’t quite reach anywhere near modern LED efficacy - CREE has broken 300lm/W a year and a half ago.

It’s all fine if you like incan. But still the title should read: more efficient than “Latticebright” LEDs. :slight_smile:

I really hate the light from compact florescents. I only use them in outdoor light fixtures, where I don’t care about the light quality. Indoors, I still use incandescents (and some high CRI LED). I really like the light of incandescents, so I stocked up on bulbs before they were banned here. I’ve got enough to last a lifetime! Yeah, the cops may come for me one day because of it, I just hope my jail cell uses incandescents too.

We should remember that the incandescent light ban was passed by the “less government” party under pressure form their corporate friends. Yet people blame “more government”

Brainwashing complete.

Talk about a giant leap in efficiency. Great news, even if it means my high-tech LED's may become dinosaurs sooner than I expected.

I hope they don't outlaw LED's. I'm still trying to get comfortable with eventually loosing my right to buy incandescent bulbs. I like using them for interior lighting in the winter to help with heating.

how the MIT idea can be produced at reasonable prices.

The idea of holding back “invisible” parts of the light in the incandescent bulb isn’t new. See infrared coated (IRC, HIR) halogen lamps. In the bulb 2.0 the IR reflecting occurs near the filament and not at a coating of the glass bulb minimizing the thermal loss.

With a price below 30 bucks and with a lifespan of e.g. 10000 hours the incandescent bulb 2.0 may be successfully launched into the market for those who are looking for a high CRI.

In the next decades the efficiency of LEDs will grow from around 100 to 200 … 300 lm / Watt.

300 lm / Watt have been exceeded in the Cree lab (published 2014). Revenge of the LED in 2040? :smiley:

You know, we’re really cruel, heartless people.

Even this new incan technology, since it holds more heat at the source, isn’t going to make Life In General any better for Innocent Baby Chickens:

(Sometimes a heat-efficient light bulb is NOT your Friend…)

Or “Globe-shaped Heaters”. All are EU-legal euphemisms which are used as a way to continue sales of 100W Incan light bulbs over there. And now we can add “100W Chick-Warmers” to our lexicon- thanks Dimbo :bigsmile:

I’ve also noticed that due to the exemption of “special purpose” bulbs, the small-globed range-hood and refrigerator Incans are now commonly found in 40W and 60W ratings, where they used to be rare in anything over 25W. Same E27 base, just smaller glass and higher-than-before cost. Hence my comments about depth of thought among the regulators; their sieve-like minds produced dozens of holes for the truly intelligent to slip past the rules they thought were so strict.

Phil