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!

DOE Announces Philips As L Prize Winner

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the bright-ideas dept.

Technology 48

JStyle writes "The DOE has officially announced a winner of the L Prize, giving the award to Philips in the 60W Incandescent Bulb replacement category. The goal of the L Prize competition is to 'develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.' Philips' LED light bulb won using less than 10W of power while claiming a life of greater than 25,000 hours. The light bulb is set to go on sale as early as spring of 2012."

cancel ×

48 comments

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

Lumens? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000838)

How many lumens do you get for that 10W?

Re:Lumens? (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000884)

The same as the 60W. That was sort of the whole point of the competition. Same light output for lower wattage.

Re:Lumens? (4, Informative)

JStyle (833234) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000904)

910 lm

http://optics.org/news/2/8/8 [optics.org]

"Perhaps because of those tough requirements, only Philips has officially entered the competition thus far – and that was nearly two years ago, back in September 2009. Over the past 18 months, its 910 lm design, which Philips says operates with an efficacy of 93.4 lm/W at a warm-white color temperature of 2727 K and offers a color rendering index of 93, has been put through extensive testing."

Re:Lumens? (5, Informative)

JStyle (833234) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000922)

910 lm

For comparison, a regular 60 Watt incandescent outputs 890 lm at an efficiency of 15 lm/W

Re:Lumens? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37001140)

I haven't read the TFA, but I already have a bulb like this. I bought it at Home Depot. It advertises 950 lumens, 25K-hours, and uses 13W (according the box, but 14w according to what's printed on the bulb). It also costs $37, so I only bought 1 to test it out. So what does this new bulb get me?

Cost? (2)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000864)

How much is a bulb like that going to cost? If it's tens or hundreds of dollars, consumer acceptance will be "less than enthusiastic", considering how cheap a 60W incandescent bulb is. Hopefully it's reasonably priced so people will want to use it.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37000908)

In the EU, where incandescents are illegal to sell, this is a bigger deal. I would prefer LEDs over the mercury-containing fluorescent buggers who end up in landfills.

Re:Cost? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000940)

In the EU, where incandescents are illegal to sell...

That's insane. How do they keep the oil warm enough to start their cars in the morning?

Re:Cost? (3, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001630)

Well, light bulbs may be banned, but heaters [heatball.de] are still OK.

+1 Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37004276)

I reluctantly gave this comment a +1 interesting instead. Crappy rating options.

Re:Cost? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#37002296)

In the EU where we have the good sense to separate our waste, recycle the vast majority and only dump what's left, the mercury content is not an issue.

Re:Cost? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005844)

Compared to the extra mercury produced by the USAs coal fired power stations to power an incandescent, dumping CFLs is not an issue.

Re:Cost? (4, Informative)

jtara (133429) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000930)

I'm pretty sure this is just an update to the "60W equivalent" Phillips bulbs that Home Depot has been selling for about $30 for some time now. I have several - two in a kitchen overhead fixture, and a couple in cheap "torch" lamps and a couple of Ikea floor lamps. They really have a nice warm color and they dim reasonably well with my Insteon dimmer, though they still don't dim to "architectural" levels (10%). The range of dimming works well in my kitchen though.

These use UV LEDs. There is a glass envelope which is coated with phosphor on the inside, and the UV light excites the phosphor.

I just think they tweaked it a bit, as they were already just below the efficiency criteria for the prize.

Re:Cost? (2)

jtara (133429) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000938)

BTW, at S., California electricity costs, especially if you get thrown into a "tier" a couple of notches above the baseline, this is an economic no-brainer over the lifetime of the bulb, assuming the lifetime really is as stated.

Re:Cost? (1)

spacey (741) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001008)

That is the hardest part to figure out. Current-generation LEDs have a tendency to flake out because of heat is my understanding.

Re:Cost? (2)

nwf (25607) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001078)

Heck, CFL bulbs flake out when hot. That's they most of them die, IMHO. I can't keep any going for more than a year. I suspect the bulb itself is OK, but the cheap made in China capacitors and such are just garbage. I hope that's not the case in these bulbs.

However, I don't really use any 60 W bulbs in my house. All either 100 W or 65 W recessed bulbs. I have some CFL 65 W recessed bulbs that advertise a "short warm up" that's more like 5 minutes to full brightness. Hardly short. (And at least 30 seconds to be able to really use the light.) LEDs should be better, I'd assume, since they can turn on in a few microseconds. We'll see...

Re:Cost? (2)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#37002568)

Heat is their biggest enemy, when they are enclosed they get too hot and die prematurely.

I've got two jam pot sized ones, because of their size I put them in quite large standing lamps so they get plenty of air circulation and are getting close to 20 years old.

Re:Cost? (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 3 years ago | (#37003422)

Back in the early 90's my grandfather bought a ring style florescent screw in bulb to use in his reading lamp. After he passed on my brothers and I made sure it found a new home (grandpa was rather proud of it, he was a huge techie and loved the new stuff) and it's been getting daily use in my dad's garage even since. 100F+ summers, -20F winters, still going strong.

Temperature extremes are a factor, but the core issue with CFLs is they're made to be as crappy as possible anymore. Over the years we've amassed a house full of "factory defect" bulbs, ones that don't crap out above 80F or after the 6 months they're designed to fail at. Had to go through a lot of burnt bulbs to do it, but we still saved a ton on power costs.

Re:Cost? (2)

juancn (596002) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001034)

That's true. One thing that worries me and I don't see in lightbulbs performance assessments is the number of on/off cycles. I have a couple of CFLs in the bathroom at home and they fail very often (I've used Philips and GE). Even more often than regular light bulbs. I'm guessing that's because they get turned on and off very often and that makes the starter circuits fail. The fluorescents are fine, but the power stage just dies.

Re:Cost? (2)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001250)

They really have a nice warm color

IMHO, 6000 K daylight is nicer, especially when you need to feel awake. One nice thing about fluorescents and LEDs is that it is possible to emulate a daylight spectrum, in case you prefer it to the urine tone of tungsten filaments.

OTOH, a continuous blackbody spectrum is generally nicer than the piecewise approximation in fluorescents and LEDs. Some LEDs are particularly annoying with their stark combination of yellow and blue, but at least they keep you awake. There seems to be something about the blue end and wakefulness, as I've found that even blue indicator LEDs on appliances make for a bad night's sleep.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37001292)

Philips - not Phillips (screws) - typical American mistake :) (soon to be ex hired geek of Philips)

Only the government can make technology boring (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | more than 3 years ago | (#37002312)

There is a glass envelope which is coated with phosphor on the inside, and the UV light excites the phosphor.

That's interesting. The brain-dead DOE press release doesn't contain any interesting technical details like that.

Re:Cost? (1)

joelgrimes (130046) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001040)

You can buy 60W equivalents for about $40 right now through Lowes online. I'm using the 40 Watt version, which are only $15 and they're... adequate. I bought 8 and 1 of them wasn't up to snuff (low output).

After 4 months none of them have failed (even though I cracked one of them - it continues to work) and the difference in my electric bill vs last year is noticeable. I estimate I'll recoup my investment in about 6 months. They also put out very little heat, which counts for a lot in the summer.

Of course, now I'm anxious to see what the award-winning 60s are like. I'd really like a brighter living room.

Link [lowes.com]

Re:Cost? (1)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001124)

That's just it. $40 for a light bulb is pretty expensive. It's going to take a lot to convince Joe Sixpack that he needs to buy these instead of dropping less than $1 on an incandescent. You can talk all you want about how quickly you recoup your investment but the average person doesn't care about that (partially because understanding that concept requires thinking). In order to gain widespread acceptance, they're going to have to find a way to bring down the price.

I know several people who have started to hoard incandescent bulbs because they "aint gonna spend no $50 on no light bulb just to make those [censored] tree huggers happy."

Re:Cost? (2)

joelgrimes (130046) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001290)

I've friends like that too.

They're getting light bulbs for Christmas.

Re:Cost? (1)

i_b_don (1049110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001658)

This is just stupid. Has no one heard of compact florescent? Why does no one even mention them in these discussions. They're cheap and low power already. I've been getting them at $1.50 per bulb at home depot. Instant on and long life (at least I haven't had one go bad on me yet.)

I don't think LED bulbs have to compete with incandescent, but rather with compact florescent. When you can get something that's 15W for $1.50 why would you get something for 10W for $40? (There are some advantages to LEDs, but they don't seem like they're worth $38.50 per bulb)

d

Re:Cost? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001792)

I dont know about you, but I see plenty of references to CFLs (compact florescent lights) in this thread.

Re:Cost? (1)

i_b_don (1049110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37002408)

The problem was that I kept seeing people compare the LED bulbs to incandescent bulbs. But who's still using incandescents anymore? If you have *any* desire to save power or be green you're using CFLs already because the price is sooo damn cheap. So the market competition isn't between incandescents vs LEDs, but rather CFLs vs LEDs. That's what I was getting frustrated with, too many people pulling up the stupid comparison of incandescents vs LEDs.

d

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37003364)

Just a thought. Consider posting a comment comparing CFLs and LEDs rather than complaining about the lack thereof.

Re:Cost? (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#37004092)

I have *some* desire to save power, and so I have CFLs installed in my stairways and basement. I have incandescents everywhere else (and am stocking up on them) because I have more desire to be able to dim. CFLs continue to be terrible about it, so I'm hopeful about LEDs. For the most part your point stands, but there are situations in which the comparison to incandescents is apt.

Re:Cost? (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#37008348)

I have *some* desire to save power, and so I have CFLs installed in my stairways and basement. I have incandescents everywhere else (and am stocking up on them) because I have more desire to be able to dim. CFLs continue to be terrible about it, so I'm hopeful about LEDs. For the most part your point stands, but there are situations in which the comparison to incandescents is apt.

I have Home Depot's house brand LED bulbs in my kitchen, and they dim quite well; you might give them a try some time.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37002104)

Maybe the lack of toxic mercury vapors? Before I ever bought a CFL, I had to clean up a broken one in my home. It was a shared apartment in San Francisco, and somebody must have dropped one; there also was literally a bucket full of dead ones that was kept out back, which, given how briefly they've been on sale, means their longevity claims were B.S.

Re:Cost? (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001782)

I just have to shake my head at those people, but I also have to laugh at that statement! ;)

How much "thinking" will they need to do, when they see their electric bill cut in half, or less? That was my experience back in the early 90's. Our local electric utility offered to replace all of our incandescent bulbs for free, so I said "SURE!"

My next electric bill was ONE HALF what it was, and it STAYED that way. I have been using CFL's ever since. Now, they sell "BRIGHT WHITE" which is my preferred color temp. It isn't yellow nor blue, it really is a very nice, clean WHITE. I'm hooked.

Re:Cost? (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#37004138)

How much lighting do you have?! My electric bill in the winter (when the lights are on most) is a negligible part of my budget, and I have to assume that a large portion of that comes from computers/electronics. So, while it certainly may help I don't really care except to turn off the lights when I leave a room. If CFLs were as capable as incandescents (and it seems like they are for you) I'd probably switch slowly, but upfront cost is a huge barrier when my savings wouldn't be great. Now, propose a more efficient furnace or even air conditioner, and I'm all ears.

Re:Cost? (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#37009688)

Note that I said "Early 90's". My computer was a Commodore 64. ;) We watched very little TV, preferring to listen to the radio, mostly. Thus, most of my electricity use, then, was for lighting. That's why changing to CFL's made a 50% difference, I'm sure. Suffice it to say, it got my attention!

My electric bill, now, is certainly "enhanced" by not only this PC, but a big CRT TV that runs a few hours a day, a larger living space, a basement dehumidifier, electric clothes dryer, window A/C units, etc. We live in a small 3BR house, now. Back then, it was just a 2'nd floor, 1BR apartment with heat included. If I replaced all of my CFL's with incandescent bulbs now, it would probably only make about a 20% change... if that.

Re:Cost? (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011230)

The savings go pretty quick. I needed to replace my outside incandescents yearly (extreme temperatures during summer AND winter) and the others burned out pretty quick too plus they taxed some of the old wiring (cotton-aluminum) and a lot of the newer wiring was done wrong which made me worried about the load on those wires.

LED's fixed both the replacement and the load issue - I use about 60W worth of LED bulbs on a circuit that used probably 1kW combined (I took out a combination of 40W, 60W and even the inappropriate 100W bulbs).

Re:Cost? (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001242)

Most likely it will not be as cheap as incandescents or CFLs in terms of upfront costs. The cost saving is in the longterm as it uses less electricity. If we assume that this bulb lasts 25000 hours, at $0.10 per KWh, a 60w incandescent will use $150, a 13W CFL will use $32.50 and this bulb will use $25. So unless each of these bulbs cost $125 than incandescent and $7.50 more than a CFL, they will be cheaper in the long run. However the incandesent will have to be replaced 33 times and the CFL 2.5 times so that factors in as well

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37019200)

Ever met Net Present Value?

Re:Cost? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001648)

currently $50 I can sell you one right now if you like. they are pretty cool, slightly smaller than a regular A-19 sized lamp which means it fits all standard fixtures and is dimmable by regular household dimmers.

in other words it screws right into existing applications with nearly identical color output.(in our non philips testing you can put the led lamp right next to a regular 60 A19 and just barely notice the color differences in the same fixture. in two separate fixtures separated by more than 1 foot you can't tell any more.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37004062)

I've got a couple of Phillips 1-watt bulbs burning right now. They cut the darkness, but I could swear that they are strobeing with the 60Hz electrical supply. I don't really care to work under them.

This brightens my day! (0)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37000998)

Look forward to buying some at my local stores soon.

Not enough flexibility (1)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001416)

Great. Now, give me a version that can be dimmed with existing dimmer circuits, and can also operate in an enclosed fixture for the same lifespan. Then I'll be happy.

Re:Not enough flexibility (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#37002392)

That's exactly what they are, dimmable with a conventional dimmer.

I've got a living room light with five of the 7W version, over the past 18 months I replaced the 40W incandescents one by one when they burned out and while they were mixed you could hardly see the difference!

Re:Not enough flexibility (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#37004160)

I can't tell you how happy I am to hear that. Do you have any anecdotal data on lifespans? I would love to replace my incandescents, but it won't really make sense for me in most of my lamps until I know what the price premium actually is.

Re:Not enough flexibility (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010158)

I can't say anything about the life expectancy except the oldest one or two have already lived longer than the incandescents I used to have.

But when I accidentally dropped one the glass sphere broke yet it still works fine a a sort of spotlight in a desk lamp.

Quick & "dirty" spectral analysis (4, Informative)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#37001894)

Just take a common CD and hold it up so you can see the "rainbow" reflection for your light source. If it is a continuous "rainbow" then it's likely going to have good color rendering. If you see spots of color, then it's emitting peaks of various colors. My old "warm white" CFL's were peaks of about 6 colors. I hated them, but they were all that was available until recently.

Now I use "Bright White" CFL's which have what looks to be a nearly perfect, continuous spectrum. The best part is that they aren't yellow or blue tinged, they truly are a nice, crisp WHITE. I'm hooked.

Re:Quick & "dirty" spectral analysis (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#37002564)

Now I use "Bright White" CFL's which have what looks to be a nearly perfect, continuous spectrum. The best part is that they aren't yellow or blue tinged, they truly are a nice, crisp WHITE. I'm hooked.

Yep, just replaced my nasty old T12 loud hummers with new tri-phosphor T5s.

Solid State? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37002244)

Aren't light bulbs already solid state? Conduction happens in the filament, which is a solid. Why do we misuse existing terminology when you could just say semiconductor lighting or silicon lighting or electronic lighting?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>