Luxim Plasma Light Bulb Kicks Some Serious LED Butt

hopefully it wont give me a sunburn trying to read my books at night :-)

That's a really cool application of plasma technology... i wonder what the cost is?

I think the reason for lack of research into LED's is they last too long, some last a lifetime

At least these plasma bulbs last around the same period as some incandescent, so they can be replaced every couple years, so more money to be made

"At least these plasma bulbs last around the same period as some incandescent, so they can be replaced every couple years, so more money to be made"

These are 20,000 hours. Incandescents are closer to 2,000 hours or less.

Until it can be screwed into a normal lightbulb socket, it's not going to be of much use to the average person. Why can't LED manufacturers figure out that we want a normal lightbulb?

Actually, they last about as long as most industrial fluorescent lights. The tubes you have in your garage or office generally last around 8-10000 hours (rated), while extended life versions can last up to around 24000 hours.

Remember that with fluorescent lights, there is a strong positive correlation between cycle length and life time. In other words, if it's left on all the time, it will last longest. If it's left on 12 hours of the day in a cycle of 12 hours on 12 hours off, it will last longer than 12 iterations of one hour on and one hour off.

It's 140 lumens per watt, but I wonder what the efficiency is. How many watts of power does it take to to get 1 watt of power inside the bulb so it can do its thing?

It's true, this new technology has wonderful potential. However, the gap between us first hearing about it, and when it will actually be ready for mass production could take decades. Take LED lighting; we've been hearing the hype about it since the late 1990s, but only now are viable LED bulbs like the Luxetera finally starting to appear.

I don't think that we should just wait until this technology matures before we replace our inefficient lights; global warming is happening NOW.
I say, anybody who really cares should go with the new top of the line LED light bulbs, like the Luxetera from http://weloveleds.com/
Bulbs like that (or the much more expensive Geobulb from ccrane, which is due out this summer) already have the capacity to drasticially reduce our energy consumption.

Imagine that, the gas reaches a temperatur of 6,000 K. What is that lamp made out of?

I wouldn't want to have that in my house. Imagine touching that thing inadvertently. That's an instant 3d degree burn.

This lamp is not only a great light generator, it's also a powerful lawsuit generator.

"Little Billie put one of your light bulbs in his mouth and turned on the light. Now his mouth is cooked"

Other than that: great technology, we should definitely deploy it.

Comparing the efficiency between the three light sources:

To give the same brightness as normal 60W tungsten bulb

Fluorescence bulb 11W
LED 12.8W
Luxim plasma 6.4W

You can calculate this from the lumins values given in the video.

Nomel said... I say, anybody who really cares should go with the new top of the line LED light bulbs, like the Luxetera from http://weloveleds.com/
Bulbs like that (or the much more expensive Geobulb from ccrane, which is due out this summer) already have the capacity to drasticially reduce our energy consumption.
==================

That luxetera bulb is nowhere near as good as the high-end from ecoleds, though.

But that geobulb is absolutely amazing. Pity they claim it only lasts 30000 hours instead of 50000. It'll barely save any extra money(but I guess that isn't really the point, is it?)... but I'll definitely buy one here soon.

Thanks!

Nomel said... I say, anybody who really cares should go with the new top of the line LED light bulbs, like the Luxetera from http://weloveleds.com/
Bulbs like that (or the much more expensive Geobulb from ccrane, which is due out this summer) already have the capacity to drasticially reduce our energy consumption.
==================

That luxetera bulb is nowhere near as good as the high-end from ecoleds, though.

But that geobulb is absolutely amazing. Pity they claim it only lasts 30000 hours instead of 50000. It'll barely save any extra money(but I guess that isn't really the point, is it?)... but I'll definitely buy one here soon.

Thanks!

"Imagine that, the gas reaches a temperatur of 6,000 K. What is that lamp made out of?

I wouldn't want to have that in my house. Imagine touching that thing inadvertently. That's an instant 3d degree burn."

Like with halogen lamps, they'll put a protection glass over it.

But I don't expect they'll use it for a reading light (not at first, anyway). It'll probably be street lamps, projectors, and ceiling lights. Not stuff that's easy to touch.

Come on. Ever major LED manufacturer has white power LEDs better than 100lm/W you can actually buy and use. You have different designoptions to CFL and can go for >50.000h (each and every one, if used within specifications).
Where is this 70lm/W oldtimer from? And IIRC they use microwaves (an RF source) iin the sulfur lamp. So stay a little away from the lamp...just for precaution.

More data from Luxim's website... as of their attendance at this week'sshow in Frankfurt Germany, Building & Light 2008. Their newest light sources are ready to go...looks great.

http://www.lifi.com/dynamic/LandB2008.html

http://www.lifi.com/dynamic/pdfs/AboutLUXIM-LIFI.pdf

http://www.lifi.com/dynamic/pdfs/CompLuminairePerformance.pdf

"Imagine that, the gas reaches a temperatur of 6,000 K. What is that lamp made out of?"

This is the "color" temperature not the temperature of the lamp itself. Blue is around 8000k and orange at 1700k.

As someone who sells light bulbs for a living, I find this advancement to be exciting. Currently, we sell quite a few compact fluorescent bulbs, but many of our customers have concerns about their mercury content. If this technology were to become scaled down to a size that could be utilized by the average consumer, it would be far more efficient (in terms of lumens per watt) than compact fluorescents, and presumably less toxic.

What a great idea... I'm all for the reduction of energy used to illuminate our lives... Yet I find myself wondering what frequency of RF waves being used to produce the ionization of the gas contained in the bulbs... Is this just more RF pollution we are creating, and can we afford to take the chance that increased RF exposure is healthy for us in the long run? Just a question that is being put out there...

I too sell light bulbs for a living. Color temperature is different from ambient temperature. So what is the ambient temperature? What is the cost? What remains after the lamp has expired? What are the residual components? We know the risks & dangers of the mercury et al content of current fluorescents. What's left in these after performance? What is the cost/benefit ratio?

The video's gone...

Considering the context in which he described the temperature I think it is most likely that he is talking about actual temperature. The temperature gradient inside the bulb could be fairly steep and halogen bulbs are already exceedingly hot so I don't see a problem with that. If someone stuck a normal lightbulb into their mouths then they would have no right to sue and this wouldn't be any different from that point of view.

The gaseous contents looks like its volume is going to be very small and therefore, probably have a negligible environment impact upon escape. Without knowing exactly what metal halides they are talking about its hard to judge, but salt is a metal halide so its all swings and roundabouts when to comes to inorganic chemistry.

Cost/benefit ratio is meaningless at this stage, its a prototype -still in the R&D phase- costs will come down and the benefits are obvious. 10 years ago the cost/benefit of flat panel TVs made it prohibitive for anyone sensible to buy, now it would be silly to buy a CRT. Likewise, energy efficient bulbs have reduced in price so that even on my meger student allowance I can afford them.

Someone thinks we need to add stray RF energy to our list of environmental hazards.

The cost to create that RF energy will be a factor. I saw a hybridized circuit. Figure about $35 per cubic inch of RF generator, if it is a hybrid. Sure, the RF box SHOULD be reusable for many capsules, but it is not to a consumers advantage to gamble that way with newly mass-produced technologies. RF devices aren't well suited for 120 volt power mains, as MOSFETs of appropriate voltage levels aren't able to oscillate that quickly, and common RF power devices rarely exceed 28 Volts rated breakdown voltages.

Furthermore, why is this BETTER than standard commercial arc-discharge lamps where electrical terminals ARE required? AD lamps can be operated at DC through 400 Hz depending on lamp technology one chooses, far below the realms where a ferrite puck is needed to 'act as a lens'. I worked in the endoscopic lighting and stage lighting industry, the details are not well hidden: ask Osram.

I can't justify cooking chocolate bars in my shirt pocket (ala that Raytheon employee who discovered that microwaves can be used to cook) as I walk from room to room, in order to justify such intense illumination in each room.

Well, maybe I could, if there was a central illuminator of say 10000 lumens, and we can pipe (using fiber or light pipe) a portion of that illumination into our individual rooms. But that adds yet more expense to an already expensive situation.

These lights need RF generator/feedback devices and Ferrite pucks, CFLs still need microballasts, but LEDs could be the least risky illuminator paradigm.

I vote for totally safe, not conditionally safe illumination. CFLs have mercury to think of, and right there in my lamp socket, too. These RF devices just reek of conditional issues. Could you hand me that LED?

It's all good and nice to make a more efficient light producing source. However it can be a pretty pointless exercise if it doesn't fit into your standard light fitting at home.

It might have uses in other situations, but the average person doesn't give a crap unless they can fit it in their screw-in or bayonet socket at home. No one is going to refit their home just so a new more efficient glob can be used.

If they can fit it into a single unit that fits standard light fittings in the home, on either 120 or 240 volt, with either light socket then it will get somewhere.

"Imagine that, the gas reaches a temperatur of 6,000 K. What is that lamp made out of? I wouldn't want to have that in my house. Imagine touching that thing inadvertently. That's an instant 3d degree burn."

Heh, its slightly more than that. If that light actually burned at 6000 degrees kelvin, turning it on would incinerate your house.
6000 degrees Kelvin = 10,300 degrees Farenheit. Thats the temperature of the surface of the sun. LOL The lamp couldnt be made of anything. Titanium melts at 1/4 that temperature.

The 6000k referred to above is actually a measurement of the color spectrum, not an actual temperature.

WOW this sounds like a great new way to be able to generate light. It sounds better than the LED

Actually, 6000 degrees Kelvin does indeed refer to the color temperature, not a reference to the heat of the lamp. The author refers to this as being "the same temperature as the surface of the sun, which gives it the full spectrum of light." Kelvin is most often used when referring to color of light, not heat of lamp.

Another comparison shows that a 6.4 watt lamp gives off the same lumens as a 60 watt incandescent lamp. Watts is a measure of heat, so this plasma source is relatively cool, actually.

Just don't look for this at your local Home Depot any time soon- if at all.

This looks very interesting to me. While it may not be the best solution for home use, there are plenty of places where it would work well - for instance, office buildings. This would provide a superior environment for office work.

At that color temperature, it may produce unwanted ultraviolet light, but a simple filter (or a lens made of polycarbonate, which blocks ultraviolet) should be all that is needed. Other filters could be added as required.

Altogether, very neat. I'd like to find out more about these, and I'd love to try one out.

t seems Mary Jane growing will get a great new source of light,that is not only cheaper,but also emit alot less heat.
Outstanding. ;)

The inside temperature of the lamp is not as dangerous as it sounds:

Temperature is the driving force for heat, whereas heat refers to the actual amount of energy present. As the mass of plasma in the bulb is very small indeed, the heat of the bulb is very low. The temperature of the lamp's glass will be far lower than that of the gas inside it, as the proportionally large mass of glass requires far more heat to raise its temperature by one degree than the proportionally tiny mass of plasma.

A regular flourescent lamp has an internal temperature of arounf 10,000K (9727 C), but contains less than 1microgram of mercury. As such itcontains less than 0.1J of energy, pretty much harmless. (example taken from my lecture notes, Warwick University School of Engineering).

I hope that makes some sort of sense, anyway.

Also with regards to previous comments, a Watt is a measure of energy transfer, not heat, and the temperature does indeed refer to the driving force of heat and NOT the colour temperature. Apologies for double-posting...

This could well replace the compact fluorescent as the light source of choice for the future! A 250 watt pill size bulb is brigher than a 400 watt mercury streetlamp. A tiny electrodeless tube the size of a Tic Tac contains a plasma of 6000K (daylight) and provides an efficacy of 140 lumens/watt with a high color rendering index of 91.

um might be worth mentioning that i REALLY dont feel save with this thing. anything that replaces a miniature sun inside my house cannot be that safe. when i can see a good enough demonstration to prove that it isnt going to cause cancer due to the radiation given off (if it is radioactive, it could be) before id buy it. otherwise this is a pretty cool step for technology, guess the 30 years thing is true. (30 years is approx. the time it takes for a major step in technology to occur based on patterns)

Lumens does not equal the full story. Luminance and Luminious Intensity are huge factors, much bigger then Lumens/W.

Here's a test between a 13 watt 800 lumen cree, and a 60 watt incandescent:

60 watt incan:

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6000/incan60watthh5.jpg

13 watt cree:

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2381/led13wattsm9.jpg

The 13 watt cree has the SAME lumens/W as a 13 watt cfl (Which supposedly is a 60 watt incandescent equilvent), yet produces light equal to a 120 watt incandescent.

The light is a limited bulb type, 60 degrees, which is why the light doesn't travel far. But the intensity of the light, and the output, far outweigh the lumens.

This is a 60 lumen/W bulb. If a 150 lumen/W cree has the same intensity, and a better viewing angle, a 13 bulb would be equivelant to a 300 watt incandescent.

Temperature (as in hot, not color temperature) is not the same as the amount of heat. The smaller an area that the heat is contained, the higher the temperature. That's why high power led's need a heat sink, the small amount of heat is all concentrated in a very small spot.

The eventual commercialization of these can benefit from other developments. In particular the packaging of necessary electronic circuits with the light source has already been accomplished for compact flourescent bulbs.
The research into materials that took led's from red to multi colored and then white probably covers many principals involved in this device. (It would be interesting if led research led to replacing the led with this and other light sources).

Before this promising technology should be approved for general public use, there are some health problems that must be investigated.

Several studies have shown that malignant melanomas occur more often in people working indoors in environments with fluorescent lights than farmers working outdoors. Please don’t confuse melanomas (not caused by UV-B, with squamous or basal cell tumors. It seems that wavelengths in the range below UV-B (320 nm) but above short IR (about 600 nm) have more effect on melanomas.

The feasibility of this kinds of bulbs will depend then on mere economic reasons, and I don’t see they will become popular until the health problems are cleared and the price goes down to reasonable levels. Besides their use in very specific use as flashlights, car headlights, and other highly specialized uses, I don’t see much future for general public use. It’s a pitty, of course.

BTW, as global warming as become now “global cooling” (and will last for several decades) there is no use in pushing this technology in order of “saving the planet”. A generalized use of these bulbs won’t make a dent in temperatures –only if they are hot enough as to heat up the Earth, something we will be trying to do in the near future.

The manufacrurers blurb suggests that it is more efficient than an LED, but are they ignoring the (in)efficiency of the RF generater? This innefficiency could very well make it much LESS efficient than anything LED based. Also, the RF generator is likely to be rather complex when compared to the relatively simple electronics for driving LED's, so how reliable would it actually be?

Since the UK government is creating new build slums at such a high density that the only view is the brick walls of other houses rather than natural sunlight, I intend to build a holographic window with a false sun using an array of these lamps, which (with a bit of warm filtering) are the same as the real thing due to their continuous spectrum-no other lamp could do this.
I think there could be quite a market for it.

Why are there so many idiots on here? 6000k is the actual temperature of the plasma inside the small bulb. Is is not the color temperature. If you watch the video he is extremely clear that the plasma reaches that temperature.

It is like many of the other posters explained...is is the very small mass of the plasma that makes it safe.

@John,
Yes why are there idiots speaking about things they don't understand?
He said something like "6000K is the same temperature as the surface of sun, which is why the spectrum looks similar to the sun arriving on earth."
It is pretty clear that he is talking about color temperature and not heat energy since he is referring to spectrum. Also, as pointed out, people in the lighting industry only use the Kelvin measurement for color temp, and they use either F or C when referring to heat.
If you still don't believe us, think about this:
If that bulb was really 6000 degrees Kelvin, that equals 10340 degree Fahrenheit! He would not be able to touch that light shield let alone be able to be that close to the lamp without getting burned.

Maybe next time you want to call someone an idiot, you should do a bit more research first.

This "article" is full of mis-information. There are many LEDs on the market which exceed 140 lumens per watt...contrary to the claim that the best are "70 lumens per watt" , not to mention that a typical LED bulb lasts 3x as long.

I just hate seeing lies being used to try and sell product.

How about you link to some of the "many LEDs on the market which exceed 140 lumens per watt"? thx

Actually, when used in an application where lumen intensity is important(growing/distance lighting/etc), even new powerful LED's burn out FAST.

You can buy a $75 1000w HPS bulb once a year, or you can buy a$600 LED array or pay $450 to replace every since led in the array every two to four years. not only that but the light is diffuse and does not travel past obstructions well.

They will work for 18 years maybe, but they will loose 60% of their light intensity within the first couple years.

This, along with poor penetration is why LED lighting is still just slightly more than useless when applied to tasks such as growing plants commercially.

How about you link to some of the "many LEDs on the Pay More Attention to the Shaggy Bath Mat
market which exceed 140 lumens per watt"? thx

The future of lighting perhaps. It all comes down to cost in the long run. I wonder what kind of disposal issues this poses. Toxic waste and all that.

So a couple of the points are valid some of the comments you really need to do your research before engaging brain to fingers!

For example 6000k as per John's comment is the colour temperature.

I am suprised that there are individuals who believed it was the temperature of the surface of the bulb 6000K HA HA HA HA HA!!

Most VHO's T5s BLue end are 6000 - 10000K nothing new there.

I imagine that its these individuals who believe that change and hope are for tree huggers!!!

What I find very cheeky by Luxim is that Plasma bulbs have been around for eons.... mind the pun....this is not new technology...

Philips already has this technology out there!!!

Additionally UHB 20w LED's are miles ahead, runs near to cold same color temp 6000 - 8000k and lasts for 100K hours.

Europe is already replacing most of its street lights with new 2 UHB LED systems that give equiv to the old 400w sodium Incads.

As for the comment regarding LED wont take hold because of their life span is to long and there is no money in it.....

If I could put this statement up I would "You really need to get your heads tested, its mass consumerization and capitalist comments like that that has got the planet in the state its in."

"Time for the Capitalist to die off and allow room for the Cultural Creatives and Techno Savs to take over...."