Just read this today… seems interesting, question is whether or not there will be enough interest or some major benefit to it to justify enough people/corporations switching to this type of bulb with LED taking over and all the investment and money being poured into LED technology.
It sounds a lot like a CFL, perhaps more R&D could improve its CRI and make it cheaper, no harm in doing so i suppose but its no panacea
Thanks for sharing .
We need new technology to keep a-comin’ so that LED’s will fall in price and we can snap ’em up!
Actually, this really does look like interesting stuff. I hope it becomes commercially available soon. I think it will be more of a deadly blow to CFL’s than LED’s. The sooner we rid ourselves of CFL’s, the better, at this point. They had their chance to improve over time, but instead got cheaper and junkier! I used to think CFL’s were great, but now they most certainly are not. I wouldn’t have them in my house now if two things hadn’t happened: 1) Duke Power gave me a box of CFL’s free - twice! 2) All new fixtures are either CFL or just not enough lumens for me (or both).
It’s not a typical CFL, as we know them. It IS compact, and it IS fluorescent, but then, so is a white LED! 
I'd be VERY interested if they could do a 150W or 250W equivalent for $10 or less. The efficiency of this and Cree bulbs are nice, but 60W bulbs don't cast light very far and require way too much bulbs and lamps to adequately light a very small room, and it's much worse if those lamps have shades.
Yep, I’d be in for a whole house full if they could get that done. Like you said, 60W incans, or their equivalent aren’t enough to light a room adequately. I’ve always liked LOTS of light. That’s why I ended up here on BLF, I guess. 
150W, 200W, 250W.
Yes. Please.
Wish the $20 cree 100W would come down in price. Anyone see it discounted in their area?
it sounds like a different take on CFL technology, magnetic fields create UV and a coating converts it to visible light (it even has the mercury CFLs have).
However perception is more important then reality or fact so as long as they don’t get painted with the CFL brush they should do well
But without the electrodes the reliability is suppose to be better.
Don’t the industrial versions have an inconsistent tint and subtle variations in output? It could get annoying if that translates to the smaller version. Plus, don’t you get ballast buzz?
Most CFLs fail because of issues in the power supply. I somehow doubt these are going to be any easier on the components, especially since it sounds like the operating temp may be higher than standard CFL.
Also, I’d be a little concerned about the RF emissions. I remember hearing about a similar-sounding tech some years back. It had the disadvantage of throwing off a lot of RF at 2.4GHz, which was considered a blocker to adoption. At the time, consumer wireless devices were still relatively rare. WiFi and Bluetooth were in the market, but the market for devices with them was much much smaller than today. These days, I think the pressure to avoid RF “pollution” would be much higher.
Sounds like a new gimmick to me, kind of like 3-D TV Draws more current than an equivalent Cree LED, and shorter lifespan. Much shorter warranty as well.. What's the benefit? Less flicker? Less heat? I'm personally not affected by either... I'll stick with LED's unless something truly revolutionary comes along..
The biggest benefit is that it fits where normal bulbs don't and LED bulbs don't. I don't think that's a big problem with Cree's 40W and 60W equivalent bulbs, but I've heard of fitment problems with their 100W equivalent bulb. This new company have to beat Cree there, and if they really want to top Cree, then they need to bring bulbs equivalent to 150W and 250W incandescent bulbs before Cree does.
Right now it's the same price as unsubsidized Cree bulbs, but Cree started off with higher prices. This makes me wonder how much Finally can drop their unsubsidized price if they were sold at hardware stores.
I wonder what the warm up time for these globes are like.
If they instantly output full power, then that would be a significant gain over the CFLs.
But otherwise one would think they’ll suffer from the same problem as CFL. Poor dimming, dis-continuous spectrum, unwanted UV output once the phosphor degrades, etc…
glass blocks short wave UV, or so I’ve read on Wikipedia.
There are numerous article showing some UV from CFL (despite the tubes being made of glass).
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/120-a387/
http://www.lightingcouncil.com.au/pdf/news/10591%20March%20low%20UV%20and%20blue%20light%20CFLs%20fact%20sheet_FA.pdf
But the levels are pretty low in general by vary a lot between manufacturers.
Quote from PDF above,
“Of all the double envelope compact fluorescent lamps tested, the bulb with the highest
UVR emissions had a safe exposure time of 212 hours (continuous exposure at a distance
of 10cm) under the Australian Occupational UVR Exposure Standard. This compares to a
range of 15 – 165 hours safe exposure times for the traditional incandescent lamps tested
and 3.2 – 89 hours safe exposure times for the single envelope compact fluorescent
lamps tested at the same 10cm distance. For comparison the safe exposure time to
midday summer sun is approximately 6–7 minutes.”
Very cool!! Love the idea. I wonder just how many of Tesla’s inventions are going to become usable now that technology is catching up with his genius.