The Energy Saver Vacuum Tube of the Future

[Unlisted]

In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat from the
candle, while the light from the flame is wasted. Therefore, the tube
needs a solar cell inside it's housing, near the candle's flame. That
solar cell produces electricity from the light of the flame. That
electricity is then used to power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the vacuum
tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free electrons will
bombard the transistor. That will make the transistor produce between 6
and up to 20 times more power than a transistor on a circuit board,
because of the added electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube
and you will achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum of (example
20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable of producing 350 up to
800 watts RMS audio power.

On top of that, the internal solar cell, can also illuminate a built in
LED, which can be focused and directed at a pilot light housing, or
illuminate a radio dial, using reflective mirrors inside the tube's
glass housing.

This is a win-win approach. Not only do you save energy, but you can
operate the tube powered device anywhere, without the need for electric
power or expensive batteries. All you need are inexpensive candles to
operate the tube device. One candle for each tube. Its that simple.

Is this the wave of the future?
YES IT IS.
This design supercedes all electronic devices from the past, and will
lead us into the future. You will save the earth while enjoying maximum
power from your electronics.

 

[bitrex]

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:

In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat from the
candle, while the light from the flame is wasted. Therefore, the tube
needs a solar cell inside it's housing, near the candle's flame. That
solar cell produces electricity from the light of the flame. That
electricity is then used to power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the vacuum
tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free electrons will
bombard the transistor. That will make the transistor produce between 6
and up to 20 times more power than a transistor on a circuit board,
because of the added electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube
and you will achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum of (example
20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable of producing 350 up to
800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<TRIGGERED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat from the
candle, while the light from the flame is wasted. Therefore, the tube
needs a solar cell inside it's housing, near the candle's flame. That
solar cell produces electricity from the light of the flame. That
electricity is then used to power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the vacuum
tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free electrons will
bombard the transistor. That will make the transistor produce between 6
and up to 20 times more power than a transistor on a circuit board,
because of the added electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube
and you will achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum of (example
20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable of producing 350 up to
800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been attempts at
non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea, but none of the
cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a while, but basicly sputter
themselves to death. Ditto carbon nanotubes.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Jon Elson]

Unlisted wrote:

In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.
. . .
Wow, he's just 6 weeks too late for April first!

Jon

 

[Banders]

On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:

All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

<https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/>

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

 

[bitrex]

On 5/14/19 12:08 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat from the
candle, while the light from the flame is wasted. Therefore, the tube
needs a solar cell inside it's housing, near the candle's flame. That
solar cell produces electricity from the light of the flame. That
electricity is then used to power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the vacuum
tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free electrons will
bombard the transistor. That will make the transistor produce between 6
and up to 20 times more power than a transistor on a circuit board,
because of the added electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube
and you will achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum of (example
20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable of producing 350 up to
800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been attempts at
non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea, but none of the
cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a while, but basicly sputter
themselves to death. Ditto carbon nanotubes.

There were a few patents for cold-cathode gas tube linear amplifiers in
the Fifties, designed to use a glow discharge as a source of electrons
to modulate. Weird tubes with two cathodes both designed to be negative
with respect to the control electrode.

Not sure if any were ever actually made for sale, maybe if transistors
hadn't worked out. They'd still draw gobs of "plate" power as compared
to transistors so limited applications, maybe in high-reliability high G
force applications that would break a traditional filament or control grid

 

[bitrex]

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:

On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/


"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 13 May 2019 22:23:22 -0500) it happened Unlisted
<unlisted@nomail.com> wrote in <15dkdeth17b70b3rcmuktuttsf5gf7vo4u@4ax.com>:

In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate.
snip hallucinations

I posted long long ago you can use plutonium for the heater.
No more CO2, always a hot cathode.

More plutonium for the RTG and you never need a new battery,

Plutonium is cheap on ebay and darknet I'd think these days?

Is this the wave of the future?
YES IT IS.
This design supercedes all electronic devices from the past, and will
lead us into the future. You will save the earth while enjoying maximum
power from your electronics.

 

[Owen Cook]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:40:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/13/19 11:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
In the past, vacuum tubes required a lot of electricity to operate. Most
of that electricity was used to heat the heating wire, known as the
filament, which is very similar to the filament in an incandescent light
bulb. All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

However, you can not use a LED as a filament inside a vacuum tube. It
would appear to illuminate a tube and look like a filament, but it would
not provide the heat needed to heat the tube's cathode and thus it will
not provide the electron movement which makes the tube do it's job.

The solution is simple. Provide a hollow cylinder inside the tube's
cathode, where the filament once existed. The user of the tube must
place a lit wax candle inside the tube's special cathode. The heat from
the candle replaces the electric filament, which makes the tube work as
it did before, but with much less electricity.

But it dont stop there. So far you're only using the heat from the
candle, while the light from the flame is wasted. Therefore, the tube
needs a solar cell inside it's housing, near the candle's flame. That
solar cell produces electricity from the light of the flame. That
electricity is then used to power the circuit.

But it gets even better, by placing a transistor between the vacuum
tube's cathode, grids, and plate. The flow of free electrons will
bombard the transistor. That will make the transistor produce between 6
and up to 20 times more power than a transistor on a circuit board,
because of the added electrons. Add more transistors inside that tube
and you will achieve maximum power. That power combined with the tube's
power will turn a vacuum tube, which once produced a maximum of (example
20 watts audio output), into a tube now capable of producing 350 up to
800 watts RMS audio power.

"watts RMS"

TRIGGERED

Different from watts peak. Nothing wrong with that.

The OP is clumsy and not very funny, but there have been attempts at
non-thermionic tubes. It's a very appealing idea, but none of the
cathodes have lasted. Microtips work for a while, but basicly sputter
themselves to death. Ditto carbon nanotubes.

About 50 odd years ago, a military manpack radio, PRC-25, had a radio active valve as the final. I believed at the time that the radioactivity provided the electron flow, rather than a heater, kind of a battery saving technique.

There were special disposal instructions for these valves, but I am not sure the instructions were followed all the time. My guess there are a lot of radioactive dumps in Vietnam and other places.


Owen

 

On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

The lumen system is not based on black body radiation, but rather
follows the human photopic sensitivity curve.

Of course you could argue that the human sensitivity curve resembles
the 6000 K solar black body radiation spectrum, but this is due to
millions of years of human evolution.

 

Banders <snap@mailchute.com> wrote in
news:qbdt5q$our$1@gioia.aioe.org:

On 05/13/2019 10:53 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or
vacuum tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more
efficient florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-
inc
andescent-light-bulb/


"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient,
because it typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as
heat. (You’ll have noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a
freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED or fluorescent bulbs boosted that
efficiency figure to 14%, but the new incandescent bulb marks a
potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to 40%."

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5%
thermal efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by
the maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an
incandescent is like 1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous
efficiency. In the MIT article linked it says that the bulb under
development has theoretical 40% luminous efficiency, it doesn't
give a figure for thermal.

I dunno, the article didn't have any units to be mixed up, and it
made sense to me. I'm tired of looking at strobing LED taillights.
Cadillac is the worst.

They should coat the inside of the taillight with a phosphor like
thing that has persistence, then the strobing will get 'soaked up' a
bit.


Naaaah... That's stand up routine material. Only if the room is
filled with engineers... or is that injunears?

 

[Banders]

On 05/13/2019 10:53 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.

That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll
have noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out
bulb.) LED or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%,
but the new incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy
efficiency to 40%."

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

I dunno, the article didn't have any units to be mixed up, and it made
sense to me. I'm tired of looking at strobing LED taillights. Cadillac
is the worst.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.
That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

This cannot possibly be an original idea and there's probably
a good reason why it isn't done. Maybe it's too expensive to be
worth the trouble, or the heat or the evaporation of the filament
spoils the filter in short order, or maybe something else yet.

I came across a 1974 patent application of the idea, and I'm sure
it wasn't novel even then.

Jeroen Belleman

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
newspskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com:

> millions of years of human evolution.

Did not know that we were around that long.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 14 May 2019 11:42:51 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
<opskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com>:

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

The lumen system is not based on black body radiation, but rather
follows the human photopic sensitivity curve.

Of course you could argue that the human sensitivity curve resembles
the 6000 K solar black body radiation spectrum, but this is due to
millions of years of human evolution.

Nice, I have indeed had it with LED scew in bulbs,
those blow within a short time,
Reason is simple:
here the circuit diagram of big ones I bought:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_circuit_diagram_IMG_6925.JPG
there is also a few hundred kOhm resistor in parallel to the series cap maybe to avoid electric shocks.
LEDs run at about 25 mA each!!
Draws about 90 to 100 mA largely capacitive from the mains
failed after a few month on mains spike.

The series capacitor is a few uF, hard to read the value, so took it out and measured it:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_series_capacitor_IMG_6920.JPG

The seller is this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/231733195212
but what is in the shops here reacts just as bad on main spikes.

Any spike on the mains (plenty of those here) causes a HUGE current in the LEDs,
one in a group of 4 will fail, making that group more sensitve to the next spike
and then it is over.


I fixed mine a couple of times by shorting a burned out group,
that does increase current so it did not last...
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_fix_IMG_6918.JPG

So mains powered LED lights as sold are basically a hoax,
more electronic landfill.

Things could probably be fixed by placing a good VDR on the filter cap.

 

On Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:56:53 UTC+1, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 14 May 2019 11:42:51 +0300) it happened
upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
opskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com>:

One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.

The reason for incandescent lamp low efficiency is the low filament
temperature of about 2700 K, which has the black body radiation peak
around 1000 nm, in the near IR region. Only a small skirt of this
radiation falls into the usable 380 - 740 nm visible light region.

If we could increase the filament temperature to 6000 K, the black
body radiation peak would fall in the middle of human vision range.

"The old-style bulb was only considered to be 5% efficient, because it
typically lost around 95% of its energy to the air as heat. (You’ll have
noticed this if you ever tried to unscrew a freshly burnt-out bulb.) LED
or fluorescent bulbs boosted that efficiency figure to 14%, but the new
incandescent bulb marks a potentially huge leap for energy efficiency to
40%."

The incandescent lamp has a claimed efficiency of 5 % at 10-12 lm/W.
Reasonably 'white' LEDs have 100-120 lm/W, so th LEDs would have about
50 % efficiency.

Since the theoretical maximum efficiency for white light is about
200-250 klm/W, so that 50 % makes sense also in this respect.

I think they're mixing up their units in this comparison if the
incandescent loses 95% of the energy input as heat then it's 5% thermal
efficient, you can only compare watts to watts.

luminous efficiency is a different unit, lumens/watt scaled by the
maximum theoretical of a black-body radiator. of an incandescent is like
1%. a good LED bulb has ~20%(?) luminous efficiency. In the MIT article
linked it says that the bulb under development has theoretical 40%
luminous efficiency, it doesn't give a figure for thermal.

The lumen system is not based on black body radiation, but rather
follows the human photopic sensitivity curve.

Of course you could argue that the human sensitivity curve resembles
the 6000 K solar black body radiation spectrum, but this is due to
millions of years of human evolution.

Nice, I have indeed had it with LED scew in bulbs,
those blow within a short time,
Reason is simple:
here the circuit diagram of big ones I bought:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_circuit_diagram_IMG_6925.JPG
there is also a few hundred kOhm resistor in parallel to the series cap maybe to avoid electric shocks.
LEDs run at about 25 mA each!!
Draws about 90 to 100 mA largely capacitive from the mains
failed after a few month on mains spike.

The series capacitor is a few uF, hard to read the value, so took it out and measured it:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_series_capacitor_IMG_6920.JPG

The seller is this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/231733195212
but what is in the shops here reacts just as bad on main spikes.

Any spike on the mains (plenty of those here) causes a HUGE current in the LEDs,
one in a group of 4 will fail, making that group more sensitve to the next spike
and then it is over.


I fixed mine a couple of times by shorting a burned out group,
that does increase current so it did not last...
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_fix_IMG_6918.JPG

So mains powered LED lights as sold are basically a hoax,
more electronic landfill.

Things could probably be fixed by placing a good VDR on the filter cap.

Or a fixed resistor. Or a choke. Or active limiter. Or buy decent lamps.


NT

 

[Martin Brown]

On 14/05/2019 10:11, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 01:53:06 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 5/14/19 1:23 AM, Banders wrote:
On 05/13/2019 08:23 PM, Unlisted wrote:
All heated wire filaments whether inside of lightbulbs or vacuum
tubes are now obsolete. They have been replaced by more efficient
florescent bulbs, or the most efficient LED bulbs.
That might turn around. 3 year-old story...

https://www.britishgas.co.uk/business/blog/the-return-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/


One of those MIT blurbs again

While the idea of reflecting back the useless IR radiation into the
filament is good, but unfortunately tungsten nor any other solid
material can't handle much above 2700 K temperatures.If we had such
materials, we could use electric current as well to reach higher
temperatures.


This cannot possibly be an original idea and there's probably
a good reason why it isn't done. Maybe it's too expensive to be
worth the trouble, or the heat or the evaporation of the filament
spoils the filter in short order, or maybe something else yet.

It is routinely done in SOX low pressure sodium lamps to reflect back an
unwanted near infrared emission line and so allow the sodium vapour to
remain warmer with less input power and force it to emit in the wanted
visible band. It also speeds up the warm up period red neon glow phase.

ISTR they put a thin InO layer on the inside of the outer envelope.

http://lamptech.co.uk/Documents/SO%20Introduction.htm

I came across a 1974 patent application of the idea, and I'm sure
it wasn't novel even then.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 8:07:33 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
newspskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com:

millions of years of human evolution.

Did not know that we were around that long.

The most recent common ancestor of anthropoid apes and human lived about 6 or 7 million years ago

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-reveals-what-last-common-ancestor-of-humans-and-apes-looked-liked/

The visual system which we share with the rest of great apes probably settled down earlier than that - most of us have three-colour vision - which would make it more than 20 million years old.

The ancestral mammal had four colour vision, but lost it about 65 million years ago, so what we've got now has more to do with seeing what we eat than the shape of the solar spectral distribution (which hasn't changed significantly) over the alst 100 millions years or so).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tue, 14 May 2019 10:07:28 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
newspskdetnt8akhq8qrote7nf8abkqbjjlmf@4ax.com:

millions of years of human evolution.

Did not know that we were around that long.

I am not a Creationist.

 

On Tue, 14 May 2019 09:56:41 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Nice, I have indeed had it with LED scew in bulbs,
those blow within a short time,
Reason is simple:
here the circuit diagram of big ones I bought:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_circuit_diagram_IMG_6925.JPG
there is also a few hundred kOhm resistor in parallel to the series cap maybe to avoid electric shocks.
LEDs run at about 25 mA each!!

Are these 20 mA or 50 mA LEDs ?

Anyway, for 1 to 3 A LEDs, you should run them at 30-50 % of maximum
continuous current to maintain the phosphor light output to claimed
20000 to 50000 hour lifetime. I do not know about 20 or 50 mA LEDs,
should similar derating be used.

Draws about 90 to 100 mA largely capacitive from the mains
failed after a few month on mains spike.

The series capacitor is a few uF, hard to read the value, so took it out and measured it:
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_series_capacitor_IMG_6920.JPG

Just wondering, why are they using the 3x4 configuration and not 12x1
LED configuration. This would reduce the current and the voltage drop
across LEDs would be four times. This requires less voltage drop in
the series capacitor and smaller series and parallel capacitors. Even
in that configuration, it should work even at 120 Vac, but for 230 Vac
operation 3x4 make even less sense.

Perhaps is one LED fails, the whole lamp would fail.

The seller is this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/231733195212
but what is in the shops here reacts just as bad on main spikes.

Any spike on the mains (plenty of those here) causes a HUGE current in the LEDs,
one in a group of 4 will fail, making that group more sensitve to the next spike
and then it is over.

This circuit is not as bad as you claim as long as the parallel
capacitor works as expected. Together with the series capacitor, it
forms a capacitive voltage divider limiting the current peak. However,
if/when the parallel capacitor dries or if it has a too large series
inductance, it becomes useless.

Some LED lamps take hundreds of milliseconds to light up and also burn
for nearly a second after switch-off, so these must have a quite large
parallel storage capacitor.

I fixed mine a couple of times by shorting a burned out group,
that does increase current so it did not last...
http://panteltje.com/pub/LED_light_fix_IMG_6918.JPG

So mains powered LED lights as sold are basically a hoax,
more electronic landfill.

Things could probably be fixed by placing a good VDR on the filter cap.

Some resistance would help even when considering the capacitive
divider effect.