Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Monster LED Array For Irresponsible Fun

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the want-for-house-and-car-and-bike-and-projector dept.

Toys 225

Tesladownunder writes "This huge LED is on steroids and then some. It is intended for use as a streetlight. It has a 7000 lumen output at 100W and will burn a hole in a CD case without focusing. And that's without the infrared that a halogen or discharge lamp has. Very efficient and low maintenance. Stronger than HID car headlights or a 500W halogen. Hit the site for lots of data and pics of it in action including burning and irresponsible bicycle luminosity. You'll want one to attach to your keyring, too."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sharks (5, Funny)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606857)

with frickin' LED arrays?

Re:Sharks (5, Informative)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607147)

I hate to ruin the party, but 70 lumens per watt is pretty terrible.

Sure, maybe that's a milestone for high power LED's, but it's not that useful compared to a low pressure sodium lamp that gets 160+ lpw. Also, both high pressure sodium and low pressure sodium lamps(2 most common street lamps) have a more pleasant spectrum on the eyes.

A pink or reddish tone is a lot better at illuminating streets than a faux white spectrum that has high peaks in the blue region.

Re:Sharks (5, Funny)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607269)

A pink or reddish tone

Thats why its called the red light district?

Re:Sharks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607575)

That's neon. Sodium is orange.

Red lights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607763)

Red lights refer to the laterns hung outside of brothels during the days of old by railroad workers.

This and more sexual trivia found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-light_district [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sharks (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607401)

That's the problem with the lumen scale. The most efficient LEDs are red and blue. The lumens scale weighs green an order of magnitude more than red and blue because it's based on the sensitivity of the human eye. In LEDs, there's a so-called "green gap"; there are no efficient green LEDs, which is right where we need it the most when it comes to lighting that our eyes can see effectively.

Now, for plants, it's a different story. Plants love red and blue, which is what LEDs do best. But really, we're supposed to be impressed by 100W of LEDs? I have 200W of LEDs in the room next to me (I start my garden seedlings under LED light). A standard UFO grow light is 90W, and many dozens of them sell daily on Ebay alone. What the heck are they doing spending $500 AUD on only 100W of LEDs? I got my UFO for $140-some; that took watching for a few weeks, but you can "Buy It Now" on them generally for $225. The rest of my LEDs are LED xmas lights, which are even cheaper (although the UFO seems more effective... pretty nice product, IMHO).

Re:Sharks (2, Funny)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607465)

So, when's the harvest? :)-~

Re:Sharks (1, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607745)

That's not the next step; the next step is transplanting outdoors so they can make use of that nice free light, The Sun. ;) Just this evening I finished setting up vine clips on hanging strings to support my climbing plants. I look forward to the airborne pumpkins and melons ;)

You've completely missed the point. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607611)

"What the heck are they doing spending $500 AUD on only 100W of LEDs?"

Certain Slashdot editors are determined to devote as much /. front page real estate as possible to their precious Australia. This "story" is from an Aussie site.

Really, as far as morons such as kdawson and timothy are concerned, any shit will do, so long as it's Australia-related.

Re:You've completely missed the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27608001)

yip - the truth hurts.

Re:Sharks (4, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607433)

Oh, and in case anyone is curious about growing plants under LED lights, I've been documenting the experience here [gardenweb.com] .

Net result? The UFO works better than the Xmas lights, but the Xmas lights do work. Everything but the lettuce and brassicas seems to thrive under the LEDs, and the lettuce and brassicas would probably thrive if they were right under the UFO instead of on the periphery. Some plants, like the pumpkins, have been acting like the LED light is steroids. So, if you want to grow plants indoors but don't want a huge power bill, I'd go with a UFO or two inside a reflective chamber.

And yeah, I know, most people just use them for pot :P

Re:Sharks (2, Funny)

mnemotronic (586021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607561)

...both high pressure sodium and low pressure sodium lamps(2 most common street lamps) have a more pleasant spectrum on the eyes

Which is what makes them totally unacceptable in this here application buckaroo, which is about cooking someones eyeballs in situ. "Pleasing spectrums" is fer them artsy-fartsy, gayboy wanna-bees. Kill-o-lumens is fer manly men. Gimme an "oo-rah".

Re:Sharks (5, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607619)

Also, both high pressure sodium and low pressure sodium lamps(2 most common street lamps) have a more pleasant spectrum on the eyes.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that low pressure sodium lamps have a pleasant spectrum before. Sure, the bright monochromatic yellow may be intriguing to look at, but the world it illuminates is a weird ghostly yellow and black landscape. In fact, they make a good total-color-blindness simulator. There's a reason that despite the power efficiency, low pressure sodium is used only for utility lighting, and it's the color rendering (that and the restart time).

With LED lighting, you could potentially save power by turning on full illumination only in areas in use, and keeping unoccupied outdoor areas much dimmer. LEDs can be turned on and off quickly, with negligible startup and restart times. I'm sure that would require careful planning for gradually lighting up an area to avoid dazzling pedestrians or drivers and not creating a flashing-neon-sign film noir effect for people sleeping indoors nearby, but there could be potential. An unused light turned off is very efficient.

Re:Sharks (1)

exley (221867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607639)

A pink or reddish tone is a lot better at illuminating streets than a faux white spectrum that has high peaks in the blue region.

Better, or just what people are more used to?

And while the lumens/watt metric may not currently be as high for LEDs as other types of lighting (although it is constantly improving), LEDs provide plenty of other benefits such as energy efficiency, environmental impact, and lifetime.

Re:Sharks (4, Funny)

Zero_DgZ (1047348) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607715)

Yes, but funky blue-spectrum LED lights will make your downtown area look like a cyberpunk novel cover, which is worth way more awesome points than 160 lumens per watt.

Plus, if existing phosphor-on-blue-die LED's are any indication these will also make fluorescent objects in your downtown area light up like christmas trees.

Re:Sharks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607799)

Isn't the high heath discharge a signe of lost energy? the most efficient a light should be, the less heath it should output... so melting CD cases makes me wonder.. lol

Re:Sharks (1)

robbak (775424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27608139)

It is melting them with visible light energy. Visible light is just the same as infa-red light when it comes to heating things up. It's just that it's also useful with seeing things as well.

Re:Sharks (2, Funny)

Shark (78448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607405)

Enough with the frickin' stuff already!

/. really needs a better moderation system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607851)

I just realized that I no longer read /. discussion threads. Same old, flaccid jokes, insightful comments quarter of an inch deep, etc .. that's what you get floating on top of the page when sorted by score. Compare that to HN for example. Good and truly interesting stuff on top, crappy mundane smart-ass commentary at the bottom.

So.... (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606871)

So nothing better than to walk underneath a streetlight that can burn a hole through a CD case? Somehow I think this might be an unsafe thing to have....

Re:So.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27606891)

The 20 feet tall people will just have to watch where they're walking.

Re:So.... (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607163)

Somehow I think this might be an unsafe thing to have....

Luckily we don't currently walk around for 1/2 the day under a light source that's hot enough to burn a hole through a CD case (if it's placed close enough)...

Hey?

Re:So.... (3, Funny)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607983)

I tried this experiment, but the flourescent lighting didn't even succeed in bleaching the color :(

Re:So.... (0, Offtopic)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607667)

Quite fun at the office are those super-strong magnets you can buy. I keep mine stuck to the side of my computer case. Can they affect solid state drives?

Is it just me... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27606883)

...or is that page totally fucked up in Firefox?

Re:Is it just me... (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606903)

It's just you.

I like side scrolling and searching for graphics.

It's like a game!

Re:Is it just me... (1)

windsurfer619 (958212) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607335)

Oh no!
I'm addicted! [slashdot.org]

My IE8 install doesnt see any graphics at all. (1)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607857)

it also doesnt have any enbedded videos, and I cant seem to tell if its a bad install, im not p4rompted for any plugins or missing items.. although there clearly is. It rarely pics of embedded video, ever.

anyone help?

Re:Is it just me... (5, Informative)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607097)

It's not you. The page's author used Microsoft FrontPage to create it, so naturally it doesn't render correctly unless you're using IE.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607101)

It looks ok to me in Opera apart from an ugly gap at the top of the page.

Re:Is it just me... (3, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607123)

So fucked up, in fact, that I couldn't even save it trying to hack the thing in Firebug. Or Safari's inspector. I mean... I've seen websites that fail outside of IE before, but never like this. It somehow even managed to override it's own inline styles for the table width - by several thousand pixels, no less.

The one time I try to RTFA and this is what I get. I should have known better.

Re:Is it just me... (5, Informative)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607125)

This is how you fix it real quick:

1. ctrl-A and cut the entire page out of Firefox. Paste it into Open Office.

2. ctrl-A to select all text and change the text color to black.

3. ctrl-A to select all text and go to the Table/Table Properties menu.

4. On that menu, change the right boundary of the table to something that is not a mile off the right side of the page.

You can fuckin' read it now.

Re:Is it just me... (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607207)

That's a real nerd solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. If the person who made that website wants people to read it it should render correctly in most browsers. Apparently (s)he doesn't care who reads his/her website so I'm not going to bother.

Re:Is it just me... (1, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607239)

IE is "most browsers", if you want to think about it that way.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 [hitslink.com]

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607299)

that may be true but he's still saying fuck off to about 1/5 to 1/4 of every viewer which is quite a bit of people especially for something that has a bit more interest to more technical minded people which tends to use firefox more.

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607421)

He didnt say 'the browser most people use' he said most browsers. Firefox would be one of 'most browsers'.

Alternatively:

s/most browsers/standards compliant browsers, and then IE if you have time/

Alternatively, Only absolute ignorant fucks use MS Frontpage to make webpages. The only thing worse is using MS Word to 'export' to HTML - I'm sure you could easily make a 'Hello world' page that took up more than 100Kb in html code alone using MS Word.

Re:Is it just me... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27608007)

here is a better solution:

In firefox with the Web Developer extension, click the "Linearize Page" under Miscellanious.

you can now read the page

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607247)

We three Opera users have no problem.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607495)

Three? I didn't realize there were that many left.

Apologies. It was there and I had to do it. :D

You need a southern hemisphere browser (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607359)

You know, the kind that swirl the other way

Re:Is it just me... (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607427)

Not if you open in ie tab/switch rendering agents.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

falken0905 (624713) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607531)

Wow, finally a site that actually renders -better- with Opera (v9.64) than with Firefox! I'm so excited!.!.!

Re:Is it just me... (1)

azav (469988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607581)

Screwed in Safari too.

Re:Is it just me... (3, Informative)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607819)

it is you, i have 30" monitor and found it welcome change from that crapy 800px websites around the world

Another use (5, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606899)

Staring at one of these LEDs from close range will erase the ugliness of the linked site from your memory. Try it

Re:Another use (2, Insightful)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607099)

Ugliness? It looked liked totally trashed HTML to me. No images, visible code, broken tables... How can somebody post a link to this?

Re:Another use (2, Funny)

Shinmizu (725298) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607345)

How can somebody post a link to this?

We're trying to slashdot it out of existence.

Re:Another use (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607515)

We're trying to slashdot it out of existence.

What's this 'we' shit, Kimosabe?

Re:Another use (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607705)

How can somebody post a link to this?

Years of practice

Re:Another use (3, Insightful)

davolfman (1245316) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607259)

It's functional on IE 6. Which really doesn't do much for this guys geek cred.

Re:Another use (4, Insightful)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607549)

You can be a geek without being a computer geek. Maybe his thing is electronics and not coding.

Re:Another use (5, Informative)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607351)

Bad website design aside, this guy is what I would call a da Vinci of our time. Just check out [tesladownunder.com] all the HV things he does in his free time after being a MD all day.

I personally enjoy his gaming [tesladownunder.com] references [tesladownunder.com] , but there's something for everyone.

Just... wow. His curiosity and expanse/depth of testing is simply baffling....

No wonder he didn't have time to design a website, he's not interested in boring numbers and code; he enjoys placing himself in, what I would call, risky situations [tesladownunder.com] .

Re:Another use (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27608015)

yeah! look there is a photo [tesladownunder.com] on his home page in which he is standing inside a faraday cage and there are red sparks all over his head!!
this is some cool shit!

I RTFA.... (5, Funny)

Narnie (1349029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606917)

While I think the pictures are interesting, the layout makes me wish I didn't read the fucking article.

Burn a hole in that site (4, Informative)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607185)

Wow, that looks awful in FF. If you're running Windows and really want to read the article, use IE or the IE Tab plug-in for Firefox. If you have any doubt that FrontPage is the worst thing to ever happen to the web, take a look at the page's source:

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">

Re:I RTFA.... (4, Funny)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607305)

While I think the pictures are interesting, the layout makes me wish I didn't read the fucking article.

I guess you could say he wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch?

Re:I RTFA.... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607443)

Yeah, 3x wide in Safari... CSS failure?

Firefox unfriendly (3, Informative)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606945)

That page gets really messed up under non IE browsers. Both Firefox and Chrome show a pretty broken page. IE7 seems to display it OK.

Re:Firefox unfriendly (5, Insightful)

alriode (1161299) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606981)

There are some hints about this issue in the source code:

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>LED's</title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta name="Microsoft Theme" content="black 0111, default">
<meta name="Microsoft Border" content="none, default">
</head>

The horror! The horror!

Re:Firefox unfriendly (4, Funny)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607029)

<meta name="Microsoft Theme" content="black 0111, default">

I forget the order of the screw flags on the content attribute. The first one is IE, of course. But are the next ones Firefox, Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, Chrome, Safari?

Re:Firefox unfriendly (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607901)

It's Firefox,Chrome, Safari.

But it's only implemented in FF3, so it's quite useful for setting up an invisible box to tell Firefox users to upgrade to FF3 (Since there are people still using it about.

(Honestly, though, I have a span on my site with style="opacity:0;" telling users to upgrade their browser to the latest version of Firefox, Opera, Safari, or Chrome. They've only recently switched over from -moz-opacity, so this works excellently.)

Re:Firefox unfriendly (1)

bh_doc (930270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607033)

Bad Konqueror 3.5, too.

Re:Firefox unfriendly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607061)

Looks fine in Opera though. Not only that, the fact that I use Opera makes Richard Stallman cry, which I think is wonderful.

Re:Firefox unfriendly (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607109)

Opera displays the page properly.

Did they try to mess up firefox on purpose? (3, Funny)

X-Power (1009277) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606953)

I don't think it could have been worse than this even if they tried.

Possibly questionable design? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606963)

From the pictures, the device is clearly an array of individual LED emitters all epoxied into the same housing. From the drive voltage (32v) they would seem to be arranged as several parallel strands of multiple emitters in series. Further, there doesn't look to be much room inside the package for any sort of per-die regulator circuitry.

That being the case, I'd expect failure of any one emitter to be a serious issue. If, because of bad luck, thermal hot spots, moisture infiltration, or whatever, one of the emitters fails, it will either fail open, and break the circuit for all the other emitters it is in series with, or fail partly or wholly closed, and expose the emitters it is in series with to higher voltage. They will, then, start to die as well, until the whole string is dead.

Once an emitter goes, you aren't really going to be able to swap it out in a package like that, and I'd expect several of its buddies to swiftly follow it off this mortal coil.

Re:Possibly questionable design? (4, Informative)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607327)

To be fair, it looks more like a "hey we made this for fun" thing than a serious attempt at making a practical ultrabright array.

That said, LEDs are pretty robust, and tend to fail open circuit rather than closed circuit so if individual LEDs blow in a series chain, they don't destroy others with them. A few years back I did a lot of work with similar arrays to provide controlled lighting for machine vision - you can overdrive them by ridiculous amounts as long as it's only for a very short time (although they do 'wear out' faster with this treatment). We had no troubles passing over 10 times the rated current through standard 'ultrabright' LEDs for up to 10-20 milliseconds.

Re:Possibly questionable design? (1)

bitrex (859228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607889)

I've wondered recently if, with a sufficiently large LED array under microprocessor control that simulates a "double humped" brightness curve, one could point it up at the sky and start triggering these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_satellite [wikipedia.org] . I wonder what kind of new government friends I could make?

Re:Possibly questionable design? (3, Informative)

m85476585 (884822) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607853)

They should be driven by a constant-current supply, so if one emitter in a series fails to short the power supply will just drop the voltage until the current is back to a safe level.

Re:Possibly questionable design? (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607971)

Constant current supplies don't deal with fail opens, though. If a string fails open, then the other parallel strings pick up additional current, likely causing them to fail. It's a cascading effect. The more that fail, the faster the remaining strings burn out. Per-string current regulators would be the way to go.

Re:Possibly questionable design? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607931)

What?! To me the analogue is obvious. This is clearly revolutionary technology on a Nobellian scale.

Christmas tree lights = Vacuum tubes
100W LED array = Transistors

I await tremblingly the advent of the Integrated Klieg Light.

Light vs Heat (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27606967)

Isn't the goal for a light source to turn as much of the power as possible into light rather than heat? Why is being able to burn a whole in a CD case a good thing for a light?

Re:Light vs Heat (2, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607003)

When light hits a surface, some of it bounces off, and some of it gets absorbed. If you dump a whole lot of light onto a surface, it gets hot enough to burn. That's why giant frickin lasers are non-harmless.

Re:Light vs Heat (3, Informative)

clevelandguru (612010) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607023)

Light has energy that gets converted to heat when it hits a material. Just like the heat generated on earth by the sun light.

Re:Light vs Heat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607217)

Yeah, the difference is totally whether the heat gets created right when the light is leaving the source or when it strikes some surface away from the source.

That array is almost as bright... (5, Funny)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#27606989)

...as the site designer is dim.

90s layout (1, Troll)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607005)

Wow, the person who made that website is firmly stuck in the 1990s. No way I'm going to be reading that webpage.

Re:90s layout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607091)

More like entrenched in M$ technology... which is stuck in the 90s.

Re:90s layout (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607171)

Agreed. if it doesn't render in Firefox, there's no reason to bother. The author is obviously an idiot.

Re:90s layout (1)

chickenrob (696532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607245)

The guy is interested in playing around with cool stuff, not building websites for YOU to think are cool.

Re:90s layout (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607267)

Why does he bother to make a website then?

Do want. (3, Interesting)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607043)

I actually bought some LEDs recently from the eBay seller he mentions. Some 250,000MCD 10mm white LEDs, some little DIP-package white LEDs, and some DIP-package RGB LEDs. I saw these LED arrays and I knew I wanted one of the 50watt 3500 lumen ones for a DIY 1080p projector build. (Also possibly to jury-rig an LED replacement for the $400 2000 lumen bulb in my BenQ projector)

The 7000 lumen one like he's playing around with would be nice if you want to build a projector that doesn't require a light-controlled environment, or is projecting a super-large image. (Or if you want to just burn shit down, lol) I imagine with that sort of output though, it starts to become a real heat problem for the LCD in the projector, just like a conventional bulb.

These days it's getting so that anyone with a little know-how and some cash can build nearly anything they want. Especially if you just built your own CNC milling machine. ;3

Re:Do want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607241)

I saw these LED arrays and I knew I wanted one of the 50watt 3500 lumen ones for a DIY 1080p projector build.

Ick, that will look awful.

That guy has one of the best websites on HV stuff (5, Interesting)

zymano (581466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607103)

Great photos too. Look through his laser and HV section.

Amazing collection. Interesting character.

Warning (5, Funny)

Virak (897071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607173)

Do not look into website with remaining eye.

Would it have killed them to learn HTML and CSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607203)

The 1990s called. They want their Microsoft FrontPage back.

Re:Would it have killed them to learn HTML and CSS (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607391)

NO WE DON'T!!!!

seriously, like no way!

The plural of LED (0, Redundant)

ChenLiWay (260829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607233)

is LEDs, not LED's.

That is the last time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607253)

I RTFA.

bright, but spendy (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607283)

You can get these on eBay [ebay.com] , but they cost a pretty penny.

Also, I really hope that guy didn't actually use this 100W LED streetlight as a headlight for his bicycle as the pictures imply. Not only would that be extremely rude, but extremely dangerous/deadly as well.

Sounds a lot cheaper than the ABL... (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607319)

The ABL... such a cool idea on paper, but 8 billion bucks later and no laser on the plane. They are using a chemical laser.. wonder if they should be using LED lasers...

Re:Sounds a lot cheaper than the ABL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607387)

they should do, if solid state lasers were as powerful as chemical ones. But they are not, so currently, its chemical.

hard to starboard (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607367)

that site so doesn't work in chrome.

i just got off the toilet (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607385)

i shit out another obama. smelly motherfucker too.

plop!

Gallium Nitride (5, Informative)

nitroyogi (1471601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607449)

The source material for this LED is Gallium Nitride(GaN). Its quite a revolutionary semiconductor material developed first by Shuji Nakamura in the 90s at Nichia Corporation, Japan.
It has a multitude of applications in different fields - optoelectronics, HF microwave communications and anti-radiation hardening for space vehicles.

These LEDs are very efficient in the sense that they consume less power and have more lumen output. And they die out gradually, unlike traditonal sources of lights like tubes/bulbs which will immediately fuse off. Which explains why they are robust alternatives for street lights, traffic signals, etc. They need less power, less maintainance and due to their solid state nature are quite tough materials.

Lot of research has been conducted on them. Here are couple of leading centres for GaN research -
UCSB - http://my.ece.ucsb.edu/mishra/studygane.htm [ucsb.edu]
Cambridge(UK) - http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/GaN/ [cam.ac.uk]

There is an online journal of Nitride Semiconductor research not updated much now, but very useful -
http://nsr.mij.mrs.org/ [mrs.org]

Check it out.

Many traffic light signals use these LEDs already across the world nowadays for less power consumption. Watch out for few in your city.
I remember back in my college days that it was already being touted as a replacement for the century+ old incandescent bulb. Buzz and hype I guess but still with a lot of substance.

Cheers!

Re:Gallium Nitride (1)

nitroyogi (1471601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607625)

I forgot to add. The blue laser which is used in Blu-ray disc players is also based on GaN.

Worst Web Design Ever (3, Funny)

hdon (1104251) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607543)

Dear God what is this person thinking? I have a fairly huge monitor and this page is still completely unviewable!

Re:Worst Web Design Ever (1)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27607829)

...and that, kids, is what happens when you let FrontPage loose on some HTML. Honestly, what happened to using tables for data and CSS for positioning?

So someone fix it already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27607859)

Surely one of you hotshot htmlslingers could
easily create a reasonable version of the web page.

Bad site design (1)

Askmum (1038780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27608119)

What a horrendously bad pagedesign. It seems ok with IE, but that's only because it's made with Frontpage. In Firefox it looks absolutely ghastly.

People making such websites should be banned from the internet for life.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?