Return Of The Incandescent and what this new tech could mean for the future

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...m-more-effici/

The claim is that with this new tech incandescent efficiency surpasses LED. If that's accurate, what are the ramifications for growing?

It uses some sort of crystal structure around the filament to trap the energy usually lost via heat and redirect it back to be used as light energy somehow.

I admit I didn't study this very much yet, so I'm probably missing something, but I'm excited to imagine what this might mean for the future of growing.

I mean first of all maybe actual incandescent bulb grows would be dramatically more feasible and possibly take the place of CFLs for low intensity lighting.

But even more importantly I can't help but imagine that HID bulb manufacturers will, if there is any way possible, find a way to utilize this technology later down the line resulting in dramatically brighter HID bulbs at dramatically lower temperatures.

But probably there's something important that's different about HID versus incandescent that will defeat my pipe dream. Maybe. I hope not though because this really gets my mouth watering

I think we saw this a couple of years ago and it was bullshit.

Besides, ultimately we want four things from our lights;

1. Efficiency
2. Spectrum
3. Longevity
4. Low price

Who cares which technology delivers the best combo of the above, as long as they're available?

I certainly don't care which one, and I'm not trying to start some sort of light-type competition, I just like the idea of moving forward technologically with this tech for personal reasons (I prefer incandescents in a home environment) and I'm excited about the idea of ANY type of light getting a big jump technologically...

that being said... if it is bullshit, that's disappointing and I'll delete the thread. I'll try to find some debunking.

AltarNation said:

I certainly don't care which one, and I'm not trying to start some sort of light-type competition, I just like the idea of moving forward technologically with this tech for personal reasons (I prefer incandescents in a home environment) and I'm excited about the idea of ANY type of light getting a big jump technologically...

that being said... if it is bullshit, that's disappointing and I'll delete the thread. I'll try to find some debunking.

Click to expand...

In this article efficiency is referring to how much it cost to run the light. This article has no bearing on grow lights as they are, only saying they've invented an incandescent that doesn't waste it's power, possibly being more energy efficient than an LED but to my knowledge incandescent are just too hot and don't have the same PAR values or lumen outputs as LED, CFL, HID, etc.


This bulb might "recycle electricity" but that doesn't mean it would work good as a grow light.

ttystikk said:

I think we saw this a couple of years ago and it was bullshit.

Besides, ultimately we want four things from our lights;

1. Efficiency
2. Spectrum
3. Longevity
4. Low price

Who cares which technology delivers the best combo of the above, as long as they're available?

Click to expand...

What about this is bullshit? It's an experimental idea that they could make an incandescent bulb cost less money to run. Bullshit as a grow light sure but in general I think it sounds nice, I prefer incandescent lighting myself and having a more energy efficient one could be nice for the home.

Arent LEDs already essentially doing this to begin with? Phosphors glowing from LED irradiation?

Shugglet said:

Arent LEDs already essentially doing this to begin with? Phosphors glowing from LED irradiation?

Click to expand...

phosphors convert short wave energy into longer wave energy. this is talking about doing the opposite. converting long wave energy ( heat) into shorter wave energy ( visible light). doing that efficiently is a very neat trick. a dramatic leap in technology

Cyrus420 said:

What about this is bullshit? It's an experimental idea that they could make an incandescent bulb cost less money to run. Bullshit as a grow light sure but in general I think it sounds nice, I prefer incandescent lighting myself and having a more energy efficient one could be nice for the home.

Click to expand...

The consensus was at the time that this want the breakthrough it's claimed to be. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, so let's see some proof!

ttystikk said:

The consensus was at the time that this want the breakthrough it's claimed to be. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, so let's see some proof!

Click to expand...

There is no "proof" at the moment, the article mentions that some group is running test on a new bulb design that has the potential to be more energy efficient than LED's.

A couple more articles on the topic: http://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/miot-rl010716.php

Just actually read them please. The article hasn't claimed to have made the bulb just that their earlier prototypes are showing promise to their idea they can make an energy efficient incandescent. No bullshit here the dudes are literally just theory crafting with incandescent, this has zero impact on the indoor growing community.

There is no proof but there is also nothing to call bullshit on, no bullshit claims have been made.

AltarNation said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...m-more-effici/

The claim is that with this new tech incandescent efficiency surpasses LED. If that's accurate, what are the ramifications for growing?

It uses some sort of crystal structure around the filament to trap the energy usually lost via heat and redirect it back to be used as light energy somehow.

I admit I didn't study this very much yet, so I'm probably missing something, but I'm excited to imagine what this might mean for the future of growing.

I mean first of all maybe actual incandescent bulb grows would be dramatically more feasible and possibly take the place of CFLs for low intensity lighting.

But even more importantly I can't help but imagine that HID bulb manufacturers will, if there is any way possible, find a way to utilize this technology later down the line resulting in dramatically brighter HID bulbs at dramatically lower temperatures.

But probably there's something important that's different about HID versus incandescent that will defeat my pipe dream. Maybe. I hope not though because this really gets my mouth watering

Click to expand...

IF i were a millionaire ......I'd buy a shit ton of acreage and grow outdoors in south america!

mauricem00 said:

phosphors convert short wave energy into longer wave energy. this is talking about doing the opposite. converting long wave energy ( heat) into shorter wave energy ( visible light). doing that efficiently is a very neat trick. a dramatic leap in technology

Click to expand...

Is it a dramatic leap? I feel the lot of you are just chompin' at the bit to prove this wrong without even reading into it.

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v11/n4/full/nnano.2015.309.html <---- A summary of the technology being used.

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds

"The first stage involves making a regular incandescent light bulb with a conventional heated metal filament. In the second stage, the researchers create a structure that surrounds the filament. This structure, made from a form of photonic crystal, captures the excess radiation produced by the wire and reflects it back to the filament, where it becomes re-absorbed and re-emitted as visible light.

The challenge for the researchers was in finding a material capable of reflecting the infrared radiation while still allowing the visible light to shine through.

"The key advance was to design a photonic structure that transmits visible light and reflects infrared light for a very wide range of angles," said one of the researchers, Ognjen Ilic. "Conventional photonic filters usually operate for a single incidence angle. The challenge for us was to extend the desired optical properties across all directions."

The nanophotonic interference system developed by the researchers, described in Nature Nanotechnology, gives their preliminary incandescent bulbs almost a threefold improvement in energy efficiency over traditional bulbs, achieving 6.6 percent compared to between 2-to–3 percent in regular incandescent globes."

So basically they are using some sort of crystal structure to use the excess heat from the bulb to produce more energy for it without wasting it, if I understand this correctly and have summed it up to the best of my understanding. Even here they admit their early models are only close to 7% compared to the 3% efficiency of regular incandescent.

still an interesting use of photonic compression. all forms of grow lights are evolving and improving.a few years ago induction lights were the hot new technology. now it's LEDs but most growers are not jumping on the "band wagon" they are sticking with time proven technology.you can buy T5 grow lights at wall mart or home depot and home depot sells HPS grow lights as well. these major chains only deal in high volume items. this new technology may someday find a use in other forms of lighting where increasing the operating temperature of the core may improve efficiency and spectrum.

Proof is always in the pudding, I would love to see further evidence of the efficacy of the technology.

Perhaps my thread title was a bit ambitiously worded. I was high and excited.

I see reliability problems with high powered tungsten coil devices.

They can make a thicker/longer coil, they can add high temp polymers that redirect UV but they CANNOT change the melting point of tungsten which is why the lower wattage incandescents lasted longer regardless of the higher wattage having a thicker coil ect.

I wouldn't call MIT's work bullshit. It is actually brilliant.

The electricity is not recycled the heat is, thus producing more light... The potential to change indoor growing big time.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/nanophotonic-incandescent-light-bulbs-0111

One key to their success was designing a photonic crystal that works for a very wide range of wavelengths and angles. The photonic crystal itself is made as a stack of thin layers, deposited on a substrate. “When you put together layers, with the right thicknesses and sequence,” Ilic explains, you can get very efficient tuning of how the material interacts with light. In their system, the desired visible wavelengths pass right through the material and on out of the bulb, but the infrared wavelengths get reflected as if from a mirror. They then travel back to the filament, adding more heat that then gets converted to more light. Since only the visible ever gets out, the heat just keeps bouncing back in toward the filament until it finally ends up as visible light.

The selective filter designed and built by the researchers allows the passage of visible photons but not infrared photons, which reflect back to the incandescent source and are essentially recycled.

"You can send those infrared photons back to the emitting source as many times as you need until they get reabsorbed,"

Your waste heat gets turned back into more light...

Here is the actual paper and not just an article. If anyone cares to read it before calling it bullshit.

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~pbermel/pdf/Ilic-Bermel15-preprint.pdf

You guys need to read more carefully. Look at the PSD (power spectral density) plot on page 12. See the apex of the curve of the "optimized stack" (AKA nanocrystalline shell)? Look at the low power output, almost half that of the "bare emitter".

The reason is as follows: " surrounded by an interference system uniquely optimized to reflect infrared and transmit visible light for all angles". Basically, this system converts infrared to visible wavelength light. The conversion isnt perfect so they lose a certain percentage of energy.

Every grower here should know that infrared is key (the reason why systems with low infrared have statistically poor yields). This sort of light system might be more efficient for vegetative growing, though I would need to see its affect on the spectrum. Definitely not suitable for flowering (or would need to be augmented with infrared = adding more energy, so less efficient).

*Edit: But it is awesome for lighting around the house. Go green tech!