New GE Incandescent Lamp Technology

[Victor Roberts]

Yesterday I read a press release from GE stating that they
were working on new technology that could eventually make
incandescent lamps as efficient as CFLs. The short term
goal is 30 lm/W. I can't find a copy of that press release
at the moment, but it does raise some interesting questions.

I have not had any connection with GE incandescent lamp
technology since I retired in late 1999. There were two
publicly-known technologies they were working on at the time
that, if improved, could raise the efficacy of incandescent
lamps to the 50 to 60 lm/W range.

The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

The second technology area is selective emitters. These can
be tungsten that has light-wavelength-sized patterns that
reduce emission of IR radiation while not reducing visible
emission, or they can be materials that are inherently
selective emitters. The prospect for these lamps was raised
by John Waymouth at LS:5 in York, UK in 1989. Research at
the old Bell Labs and more recently at GE R&D has shown that
it is possible to produce an efficacy gain through use of
patterned tungsten or alternate selective-emitting
materials. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one
has been able to develop a system that maintains this
efficacy gain for more then a few hundred hours at the
temperatures required for efficiency light generation.

This should be an interesting area to follow. Perhaps there
will be more information at Light Fair.


--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Victor,

Thanks for sharing this remarkable news and for your additional
analysis/insight. In a word, this is AWESOME.

For more information on this announcement, see:
http://www.huliq.com/12464/ge-announces-advancement-in-incandescent-technology

and
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/BUSINESS/702240399

The fact that these lamps could potentially offer the same lumen
performance as today's CFLs (without all the various drawbacks) AND at
a lower cost is nothing short of revolutionary. Can't wait.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Victor Roberts]

Hi Victor,

Thanks for sharing this remarkable news and for your additional
analysis/insight. In a word, this is AWESOME.

For more information on this announcement, see:
http://www.huliq.com/12464/ge-announces-advancement-in-incandescent-technology

and
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/BUSINESS/702240399

The fact that these lamps could potentially offer the same lumen
performance as today's CFLs (without all the various drawbacks) AND at
a lower cost is nothing short of revolutionary. Can't wait.

Cheers,
Paul

Thanks for these links. I agree with the comments made in
the second article that regulations should not be
technology-specific. They should be based on performance.

My favorite example of a bad technology-based law is the one
giving preferences to hybrid vehicles - such as preference
in HOV lanes on US highways. I have a non-hybrid Passat
that gets better highway mileage than some hybrids. Any
hybrid car is allowed in the HOV lane with only one
passenger and I my Passat is not.

The regulations that many say banned EM ballasts in the US
never mention EM ballasts or any other ballast technology.
They just call for a level of performance that is almost
impossible to meet with EM ballasts. That's the way the
lighting regulations should be written. The regulations
should not specify CFLs or LEDs, they should specify
efficacy - under real operating conditions, of course.


--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Clive Mitchell]

Thanks for sharing this remarkable news and for your additional
analysis/insight. In a word, this is AWESOME.

Unfortunately it's not the first time we've had this "perfect filament"
hype. It's a bit like electroluminescent technology. Lots of spin and
no significant result.

Talking of which... How are the quantum emitters doing?

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Unfortunately it's not the first time we've had this "perfect filament"
hype. It's a bit like electroluminescent technology. Lots of spin and
no significant result.

Talking of which... How are the quantum emitters doing?

Hi Clive,

I hear ya, but I think there's good reason for optimism this time
around. As Victor noted, current low-voltage MR16 IR lamps operate in
the 25 to 30 lumens per watt range and so 30 lumens/watt for an
equivalent or slighly higher wattage GS/A19 lamp seems well within
reach.

Secondly, GE has acquired considerable real-world experience with
integrated 120 to 12-volt transformers by way of their Diamond Precise
line. I have roughly forty of these lamps in my own home and after
two or three years of heavy use, not one failure to report as of yet.
This is quite remarkable given the fixtures that house these lamps are
poorly ventilated and I would typically replace one or more of the
previously used PAR20 lamps about every other week.

This is a picture of one of the "killer" fixtures:

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/846606/other/halo-fixture.php

This is a picture of said lamp collection:

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/937220/other/ge-diamond-precise.php

Bringing together halogen IR coatings and integral electronics in one
attractive package makes perfect sense, and so long as heat can be
effectively managed at these higher wattages and it's priced
competitively vis-a-vis CFLs, I see this as a home run.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Simon Waldman]

The fact that these lamps could potentially offer the same lumen
performance as today's CFLs (without all the various drawbacks) AND at
a lower cost is nothing short of revolutionary. Can't wait.

It is exciting... but bear in mind that by the time these lamps become
available, CFLs will probably be far more efficient than they are at
present

And perhaps there will be competition from usefully-dimmable low-power
metal halide and/or LED as well. Time to wait and see

 

[Simon Waldman]

The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.

It's worth getting one and doing a comparison, however. I use their
IR-coated MR16s all the time, but when I looked at the AR111 versions, I
found that the light from the IRC versions was a warmer colour (the
opposite of what you'd expect?!) and thus to the eye rather than the
light meter it actually looked dimmer than the non-IR version...

The second technology area is selective emitters.

Sounds exciting.

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Simon,

It is exciting... but bear in mind that by the time these lamps become
available, CFLs will probably be far more efficient than they are at
present

And perhaps there will be competition from usefully-dimmable low-power
metal halide and/or LED as well. Time to wait and see

All good points. I'm sure there are folks at GE still haunted by the
Halarc experience. It would be rather ironic if a new generation of
CFLs with multi-photon phosphors were to enter the market at roughly
the same time (in Hollywood terms: "HalArc II. The Sequel").

BTW, I have a Philips self-ballasted ceramic metal halide lamp in my
home (non-dimmable, of course).

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/937222/other/philips-self-ballast-cmh.jpg

This is truly an engineering marvel and you can't help but be
impressed by its technical elegance. Unfortunately, high initial cost
and fairly significant lumen depreciation make it a tough sell
vis-à-vis its CFL counterparts outside a narrow range of applications.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Clive Mitchell]

It is exciting... but bear in mind that by the time these lamps become
available, CFLs will probably be far more efficient than they are at
present

Don't forget that gas lamps used to be the plain fishtail burner type
that created a flat flame like a large area candle. Gas technology was
initially overtaken by electric lamp technology and then they developed
the gas mantle and gas suddenly overtook electrical lighting technology
again. Then there's the "Aladdin lamp" powered by liquid paraffin
(kerosene) and lights a room up like an electric lamp. (Tubular wick
for high air flow and mantle)

It just seems to take a bit of incentive to drive the technology
forward.

For instance... Would current technology red LEDs be so bright if the
introduction of Gallium Nitride greens and blues hadn't set a new
intensity target?

 

[Clive Mitchell]

BTW, I have a Philips self-ballasted ceramic metal halide lamp in my
home (non-dimmable, of course).

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/937222/other/philips-self-ballast-cmh.jp
g

This is truly an engineering marvel and you can't help but be impressed
by its technical elegance. Unfortunately, high initial cost and fairly
significant lumen depreciation make it a tough sell vis-à-vis its CFL
counterparts outside a narrow range of applications.

Could you open it and post a picture of the ballast please?

(Only kidding.... Don't do what I did to my first and only Genura
lamp.... "Pop!")

 

[Victor Roberts]

FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.

Thanks for the tip. Here's the data I just found for one of
their IR halogen lamps:

Model : 64447 IRC 65W 12V GY6,35 FS1
Voltage : 12 volts
Power: 65 watts
Output: 1700 lm ==> 26.2 lm/W
Life : 4000 hours

The wall-plug efficacy will drop by at least 10% due to
losses in the transformer, but considering that the life is
4000 hours this is a very respectable efficacy.

[snip]

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

Could you open it and post a picture of the ballast please?

(Only kidding.... Don't do what I did to my first and only Genura
lamp.... "Pop!")

I carefully opened the first failed Genura we had.
Managed to do it without breaking the bulb.
The electronics had gone phut (it was an early
failure -- the others lasted much longer).

 

[Victor Roberts]

I have some doubts that 10% is reasonable.
For these reasons.

The bulb is a lovely integrator, it doesn't care what waveform you feed
it, or even the ripple.

So, you can do things that you can't with fluorescant tubes - for
example, completely omit the resovoir capacitor - a major source of
failure, connect the bulb directly across the switching transistor, in
series with the inductor, hooked directly up to the output of a fullwave
bridge.

No output rectifier losses, no losses in the input capacitor -
especially as it ages, no losses in the output capacitor, no losses in
snubber networks.

The major source of losses are those in the inductor, and a percent or
two in the input rectifier.

By "have some doubts that 10% is reasonable" I assume you
mean that the losses in the "driver" can be less than 10%. I
tend to agree. Some F-lamp ballasts already have losses in
the 5% to 10% range and this driver should be simpler:
there's no need for a high impedance current source, no need
for high starting voltage or extra windings to heat
electrodes. However, I used a conservative 10% based on
discussions I had at the recent SSL workshop regarding LED
drivers.

The DOE SSL research plan includes funds to increase the
efficacy of LED drivers to 90%, I think in five years. I
argued that this task does not require any research since
F-lamp ballasts are already there and are considerably more
complicated than an LED driver for the same reasons I
listed in the previous paragraph. LEDs should be operated
from a current-regulated source, but they do not need a high
impedance current source.

Others in the room who work on the design of LED drivers
made a number of arguments to explain why 90% is indeed a
challenge for this application. The only significant issue,
in my opinion, is the challenge of driving a low voltage DC
load. Certainly a driver designed for a single LED could
have substantial output rectifier losses, but if LEDs are
connected in series to raise the load voltage, the
additional losses related to creating DC should be
negligible. Of course, the low voltage incandescent lamp
does not require DC.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Clive Mitchell]

Others in the room who work on the design of LED drivers made a number
of arguments to explain why 90% is indeed a challenge for this
application. The only significant issue, in my opinion, is the
challenge of driving a low voltage DC load. Certainly a driver
designed for a single LED could have substantial output rectifier
losses, but if LEDs are connected in series to raise the load voltage,
the additional losses related to creating DC should be negligible. Of
course, the low voltage incandescent lamp does not require DC.

Current LED lamps that use arrays of 5mm devices tend to use a
capacitive dropper and rectifier arrangement with the only real loss
incurred by the series inrush current limiting resistor. That actually
makes the circuit quite efficient even if the current/voltage waveform
is less than desirable looking to the supply authorities.

A quick reminder of what's inside a cheap LED lamp....

http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/candle2.jpg

 

[Clive Mitchell]

No output rectifier losses, no losses in the input capacitor -
especially as it ages, no losses in the output capacitor, no losses in
snubber networks.

And near unity power factor as standard.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Current LED lamps that use arrays of 5mm devices tend to use a
capacitive dropper and rectifier arrangement with the only real loss
incurred by the series inrush current limiting resistor. That actually
makes the circuit quite efficient even if the current/voltage waveform
is less than desirable looking to the supply authorities.

A quick reminder of what's inside a cheap LED lamp....

http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/candle2.jpg

But ... I was referring to drivers for commercial
applications using high brightness LEDs operating at 350 ma
and above -- while maintaining high input power factor.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Yesterday I read a press release from GE stating that they
were working on new technology that could eventually make
incandescent lamps as efficient as CFLs. The short term
goal is 30 lm/W. I can't find a copy of that press release
at the moment, but it does raise some interesting questions.

I have not had any connection with GE incandescent lamp
technology since I retired in late 1999. There were two
publicly-known technologies they were working on at the time
that, if improved, could raise the efficacy of incandescent
lamps to the 50 to 60 lm/W range.

The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

The second technology area is selective emitters. These can
be tungsten that has light-wavelength-sized patterns that
reduce emission of IR radiation while not reducing visible
emission, or they can be materials that are inherently
selective emitters. The prospect for these lamps was raised
by John Waymouth at LS:5 in York, UK in 1989. Research at
the old Bell Labs and more recently at GE R&D has shown that
it is possible to produce an efficacy gain through use of
patterned tungsten or alternate selective-emitting
materials. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one
has been able to develop a system that maintains this
efficacy gain for more then a few hundred hours at the
temperatures required for efficiency light generation.

This should be an interesting area to follow. Perhaps there
will be more information at Light Fair.

Here's a link to work on selective emitter R&D for
incandescent lamps. It's sparse, and rather dated, but
gives an indication of the technology. I have the LS:9
paper this link refers to but have not yet taken a new look
at it. More later.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tech/lighting/filaments.html

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Looks like a beauty. I certainly haven't come across one such. Looks like it's
electronically ballasted.

I'm pretty sure that's the case (it's completely silent in operation).

But is it really that bad that you start seeing significant lumen depreciation
during its lifetime?

Well, in fairness, this lamp has several thousand hours under its
belt. According to Philips, initial and mean lumens are 1,220 and 850
respectively, so my impressions are pretty much in line with what you
would expect.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/hid/pdf/p-5747.pdf

OSRAM makes several kinds of small metal halides, (the HQI-TS/WDL) around 75W,
and they have installed dozens of them outside my house on the sidewalk. I
haven't noticed any depreciation in their 3-4 years of service, but some have
started cycling and some have extremely shifted colors.

Perhaps the electronic components in your specimen are to blame?

Some of the blame rests on my own shoulders, given my more frequent
switching; in a commercial environment where the lamp might operate
for twelve or more hours at a time, I suspect lumen depreciation would
be a little less severe.

The only other minor quibble with this lamp is that its light has a
slight mauve/purple tint to it (at least to my eyes). It's certainly
not objectionable and I suspect most people wouldn't pick up on it.

On a somewhat related note. A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
As it turns out, I happened to visit this complex just before and
after this relamping and was shocked by my reaction. What was once a
warm, friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost
lifeless quality, and while I fully applaud the move to a more energy
efficient and environmentally friendly technology, I very much dislike
its impact on the general atmosphere (and these are good quality lamps
with a CRI of 86). This is one of the reasons why this announcement
has caught my interest -- a halogen lamp that operates at the same
efficiency as a CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of
incandescent lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Clive Mitchell]

On a somewhat related note. A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
As it turns out, I happened to visit this complex just before and after
this relamping and was shocked by my reaction. What was once a warm,
friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost lifeless
quality, and while I fully applaud the move to a more energy efficient
and environmentally friendly technology, I very much dislike its impact
on the general atmosphere (and these are good quality lamps with a CRI
of 86). This is one of the reasons why this announcement has caught my
interest -- a halogen lamp that operates at the same efficiency as a
CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of incandescent
lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

There are certain venues where it's better to keep tungsten for colour
rendering and use the CFL's as fill lights in less visually critical
areas. The entertainment and food industries come to mind.

 

[Victor Roberts]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:15:29 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge

[snip]

On a somewhat related note. A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
As it turns out, I happened to visit this complex just before and
after this relamping and was shocked by my reaction. What was once a
warm, friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost
lifeless quality, and while I fully applaud the move to a more energy
efficient and environmentally friendly technology, I very much dislike
its impact on the general atmosphere (and these are good quality lamps
with a CRI of 86). This is one of the reasons why this announcement
has caught my interest -- a halogen lamp that operates at the same
efficiency as a CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of
incandescent lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

I suspect they used the wrong color temperature and perhaps
increased the light level. Another case where bad design
has perhaps lead to making many people believe that CFLs
cannot replace incandescent lamps.

With the help of a qualified lighting designer they should
have been able to find CFLs which would have provided the
same atmosphere. (Perhaps customers also need to convince
the industry to make lower CCT CFLs to match low power
incandescent lamp applications.)

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.