Solid State Lighting - New Inventors, ABC, 11 July 2007

[Franc Zabkar]

Did anyone see the Solid State Lighting invention on the ABC New
Inventors program last Wednesday?

See http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm

.... or watch the video:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinvento...ogram=newinventors&pres=20070711_2000&story=1

Does the following description sound like anything out of the
ordinary? Surely the idea of using the LEDs themselves to rectify
current is nothing new. In fact I suspect that's how my LED night
light works, ie by using strings of antiparallel diode pairs.

As for the claim that "his LED lights have an ingenious way of
directing the electric current", what does he mean by that?

I seem to recall that he said that his innovation involved
"architectural" changes (redesigned lenses?), and that the LED current
was 415mA. Presumably he is using off-the-shelf LEDs.


Here is an excerpt from the Overview:

===================================================================
"There are some LEDs being used for bulk lighting applications, but
these require rectifiers (to transform the current from AC to DC) as
well as heat sinks and cooling fans to run – not Keith’s lights.

So far, engineers have been scratching their heads as to how the
lights achieve the massive power saving and low heat losses. Keith
will only say that his LED lights have an ingenious way of directing
the electric current – the rest is a secret! (aka snake oil ???)

Keith has also developed an innovative way to change the current from
the mains AC into the DC needed to run an LED. The diode itself is
used to ‘rectify’ the current. By doing this, Keith’s lights save more
power and run much cooler than current lights."
===================================================================

- Franc Zabkar

 

[John Tserkezis]

Did anyone see the Solid State Lighting invention on the ABC New
Inventors program last Wednesday?

I think the comments on the ABC website relating to this "invention" say it all.

It's nothing new.
The exaggerated claims of efficiency are grossly exaggerated.
There were some examples of how he could have done the "rectification".
Again, none of them new.

One poster said it uses a new case. This is probably the only claim to fame
the lamp fixture has.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Did anyone see the Solid State Lighting invention on the ABC New
Inventors program last Wednesday?

**I did. My partner was laughing, as I sat there screaming at the TV.

See http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm

... or watch the video:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinvento...ogram=newinventors&pres=20070711_2000&story=1

Does the following description sound like anything out of the
ordinary? Surely the idea of using the LEDs themselves to rectify
current is nothing new. In fact I suspect that's how my LED night
light works, ie by using strings of antiparallel diode pairs.

As for the claim that "his LED lights have an ingenious way of
directing the electric current", what does he mean by that?

I seem to recall that he said that his innovation involved
"architectural" changes (redesigned lenses?), and that the LED current
was 415mA. Presumably he is using off-the-shelf LEDs.

**The guy CLAIMS to have invented some fancy new type of LED. I doubt it.
What bothers me is that no figures were provided, to validate the claim. At
best, high end LEDs (aka: LuxeonT emitters) are marginally more efficient
than halogens (despite the bullshit in the Jaycar catalogue - which I have
already called them about). That places them a long way behind fluoros and
even further behind HID lighting.

Smells like bullshit to me. I'd like to see the numbers.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"

Did anyone see the Solid State Lighting invention on the ABC New
Inventors program last Wednesday?

** Yep.

Does the following description sound like anything out of the
ordinary? Surely the idea of using the LEDs themselves to rectify
current is nothing new. In fact I suspect that's how my LED night
light works, ie by using strings of antiparallel diode pairs.

As for the claim that "his LED lights have an ingenious way of
directing the electric current", what does he mean by that?

I seem to recall that he said that his innovation involved
"architectural" changes (redesigned lenses?), and that the LED current
was 415mA. Presumably he is using off-the-shelf LEDs.

** The "inventor" was not prepared to demonstrate his claims - a simple
comparison with say a 250 watt halogen ( PAR) lamp, a lux meter and AC watt
meter is all that is needed to do that.

Seems he has not allowed ANYONE to do such a test, so his claims must be
assumed to be essentially fake.

But the performance he spoke of is not impossible - by using the *very
latest* white LEDs of 60 to maybe 100 lumens per watt ( probably not yet
available commercially at sane prices) a powerful white LED light several
times more energy efficient than an incandescent could be made using his
array and AC drive method.

IMO - he was making his claims based on what COULD be done using his
arrays IF fitted with such high efficiency LEDs and AFTER the prices
have fallen to some projected base level off in the future.

So, he was grandstanding.


BTW

Of course his prototype arrays did not radiate heat like a incandescent
amp - since all the heat is generated at a low temperature and not 2500
to 3000 degrees C.



........ Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

But the performance he spoke of is not impossible - by using the *very
latest* white LEDs of 60 to maybe 100 lumens per watt ( probably not yet
available commercially at sane prices) a powerful white LED light several
times more energy efficient than an incandescent could be made using his
array and AC drive method.

These mythical very latest hot off the shelf super efficient LEDS would only
be a little better than the best of the LEDS available to mere mortal humans
such as ourselves.
So, for the purposes of explanation, one could use these LEDS instead and
get numbers close enough to prove or disprove the inventors' claims.

Personally, I'm leaning towards disprove...

IMO - he was making his claims based on what COULD be done using his
arrays IF fitted with such high efficiency LEDs and AFTER the prices
have fallen to some projected base level off in the future.

He could have used normal off the shelf leds, and said with what will be
available soon, the results would be better. Instead, he chose to fib just a bit.

So, he was grandstanding.

That's an understatement, yes? The way he made it look, you'd have to use
technology years ahead of its time to get the "numbers".

Of course his prototype arrays did not radiate heat like a incandescent
lamp

No, because as far as I've been able to ascertain, LEDS are "about" as
efficient as halogens, and that's better than normal incandescents.

What really gets on my goat, is they ALWAYS compare apples and oranges.
They're two completely different technologies, and they don't place them
alongside the technology that makes sense.

The numbers aren't good enough, and that doesn't sell. So let's mislead the
customers instead.

- since all the heat is generated at a low temperature and not 2500
to 3000 degrees C.

No, that's degrees Kelvin, used to signify colour temperature, not the
"heat" radiated from the lamp.

Where it does matter, is "his" LEDS use a different phosphor that gives a
better spread of white light than previous incarnations.

They're not "his" leds. They never will be. And I don't think he made a
deal with [insert semiconductor firm here] for exclusive use of those LEDs.


As per normal, another "inventor" does something uninteresting.

Shame really, sometimes they get some really good ideas happening, too bad
airtime is occupied by idiots.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tjerkezis"

These mythical very latest hot off the shelf super efficient LEDS would
only be a little better than the best of the LEDS available to mere mortal
humans such as ourselves.

** They are not mythical and YOU a re an presuming ASS !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

See under: " Operational parameters and efficiency "

131 lumens per watt was demonstrated by Cree Inc in 2006.

150 lm/W is about to appear from otters in the game.

Double or more the basic efficiency of CFLs.

So, for the purposes of explanation, one could use these LEDS instead and
get numbers close enough to prove or disprove the inventors' claims.

** Bollocks based on this fool's own bollocks.

He could have used normal off the shelf leds, and said with what will be
available soon, the results would be better. Instead, he chose to fib
just a bit.

** Totally irrelevant, what YOU think he could have done.

That's an understatement, yes? The way he made it look, you'd have to
use technology years ahead of its time to get the "numbers".

** The white LEDs needed are here, right now.

FOOL.

No, because as far as I've been able to ascertain, LEDS are "about" as
efficient as halogens, and that's better than normal incandescents.

** Irrelevant drivel.

Both lose over 90% of the energy consumed as heat - mostly by radiation.

( snip more asinine drivel)

No, that's degrees Kelvin, used to signify colour temperature, not the
"heat" radiated from the lamp.

** The filament is the radiator and it runs at 2500 to 3000 C.

So the heat radiated is with that "colour temperature", ie mostly
concentrated in the high IR band.

Go look up " black body radiation" - FOOL.

Where it does matter, is "his" LEDS use a different phosphor that gives a
better spread of white light than previous incarnations.

** Got NOTHING to do with lack of radiated heat - FOOL.

Shame really, sometimes they get some really good ideas happening, too
bad airtime is occupied by idiots.

** Shame usenet is full of posturing

RATBAGS & IMBECILES like " Tjerkshis " .




........ Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bruce Varley"

From an entrepreneurial point of view he's doing all the right things,

** Only he ain't no "entrepreneur" - fact is he ain't any kind of player
in the lighting game.


The dude is a teacher at bloody Granville TAFE !!

Plus he lives in the lower Blue Mountains - ie, geriatric hippyland.

BTW:

His " electronic insemination probe " must be a real DOOZEY !!

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm




........ Phil

 

[Joe G \(Home\)]

Did anyone see the Solid State Lighting invention on the ABC New
Inventors program last Wednesday?

See http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm

... or watch the video:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinvento...ogram=newinventors&pres=20070711_2000&story=1

Does the following description sound like anything out of the
ordinary? Surely the idea of using the LEDs themselves to rectify
current is nothing new. In fact I suspect that's how my LED night
light works, ie by using strings of antiparallel diode pairs.

As for the claim that "his LED lights have an ingenious way of
directing the electric current", what does he mean by that?

I seem to recall that he said that his innovation involved
"architectural" changes (redesigned lenses?), and that the LED current
was 415mA. Presumably he is using off-the-shelf LEDs.

There have been some great inventions and not so great inventions on the
ABC's NEW Inventors Show.

I don't have an opinion about the Solid State Lighting invention........ but
another inventor - who presented on the show said...

"The publicity for presenting on the show is worth about $5000 of
Advertising."

Joe

 

[John Tserkezis]

** Shame usenet is full of posturing
RATBAGS & IMBECILES like " Tjerkshis " .

Oh, I'm sorry.
I wasn't paying attention to who was posting before I replied.
What I meant to say, was, "plonk".

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tjerkezis"

These mythical very latest hot off the shelf super efficient LEDS would
only be a little better than the best of the LEDS available to mere mortal
humans such as ourselves.

** They are not mythical and YOU are a presuming ASS !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

See under: " Operational parameters and efficiency "

131 lumens per watt was demonstrated by Cree Inc in 2006.

150 lm/W is about to appear from otters in the game.

Double or more the basic efficiency of CFLs.

So, for the purposes of explanation, one could use these LEDS instead and
get numbers close enough to prove or disprove the inventors' claims.

** Bollocks based on this fool's own bollocks.

He could have used normal off the shelf leds, and said with what will be
available soon, the results would be better. Instead, he chose to fib
just a bit.

** Totally irrelevant, what YOU think he could have done.

That's an understatement, yes? The way he made it look, you'd have to
use technology years ahead of its time to get the "numbers".

** The white LEDs needed are here, right now.

FOOL.

No, because as far as I've been able to ascertain, LEDS are "about" as
efficient as halogens, and that's better than normal incandescents.

** Irrelevant drivel.

Both lose over 90% of the energy consumed as heat - mostly by radiation.

( snip more asinine drivel)

No, that's degrees Kelvin, used to signify colour temperature, not the
"heat" radiated from the lamp.

** The filament is the radiator and it runs at 2500 to 3000 C.

So the heat radiated is with that "colour temperature", ie mostly
concentrated in the high IR band.

Go look up " black body radiation" - FOOL.

Where it does matter, is "his" LEDS use a different phosphor that gives a
better spread of white light than previous incarnations.

** Got NOTHING to do with lack of radiated heat - FOOL.

Shame really, sometimes they get some really good ideas happening, too
bad airtime is occupied by idiots.

** Shame usenet is full of posturing

RATBAGS & IMBECILES like " Tjerkshis " .



....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Joe G (Home)"

I don't have an opinion about the Solid State Lighting invention........
but another inventor - who presented on the show said...

"The publicity for presenting on the show is worth about $5000 of
Advertising."

** To that particular inventor - of course.

To others it may be worth much more or much less.

To someone with nothing yet to sell, it is a way of attracting an investor.

To someone with a silly idea that will never sell - it is a way to find a
gullible investor and commit fraud.

Then, to someone like that Granville TAFE teacher - it is merely a giant
ego trip.




....... Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

Yeah, I wouldn't expect any better documentation that wikipedia. Doesn't
exactly have the best reputation for data reliability.

Neither do you.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Bruce Varley"<
"Phil Allison"

Not necessarily so benign. I've seen guys like this suck in mums and dads
to put their nest egg in silly schemes. There are reams of shonky dealers
out there, ready to engage eager inventors, get lots of gullible investors
hooked, then skip off with the cash. No doubt some of them are keen
watchers of TNI.

Caveat emptor.

** Could not agree more.

But AFAIK now - this dude is just another narcissistic old fart seeking
attention.





....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tserkezis"




** Piss off - Tjerkshis FOOL.





........ Phil

 

[Sally]

I too feel very cynical about this "invention". The "inventor" seemed to be
saying "This is good but I can't tell you any technical details because
someone might pinch the idea. So just believe in it."

 

[Franc Zabkar]

** The "inventor" was not prepared to demonstrate his claims - a simple
comparison with say a 250 watt halogen ( PAR) lamp, a lux meter and AC watt
meter is all that is needed to do that.

Seems he has not allowed ANYONE to do such a test, so his claims must be
assumed to be essentially fake.

AIUI, he hasn't patented his idea, preferring to rely on secrecy to
protect his IP. This begs the question, what is to prevent a
competitor from reverse engineering his design? How complicated can it
be? AFAICS, one would only need to monitor the LED current (in case he
was using some elaborate controller ???), or dissect the optics to
uncover the claimed "architectural" changes. The only way Higgins
could feel reasonably safe is if his actual LED was an original
semiconductor design.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

**I did. My partner was laughing, as I sat there screaming at the TV.


**The guy CLAIMS to have invented some fancy new type of LED.

AIUI his claim was in regard to the "architecture", which suggests
packaging. OTOH, the ABC web site states that "Keith Higgins has led a
team of Chinese scientists and technicians in the design of new LED
lights that can turn more power into light, and less into ‘waste’
heat", so this suggests that either his *LEDs* are intrinsically more
efficient, ie that his LEDs are some fancy new type (unlikely), or
that the *light* is a more efficient design, ie a more efficient use
of existing LED technology.

I doubt it.
What bothers me is that no figures were provided, to validate the claim. At
best, high end LEDs (aka: LuxeonT emitters) are marginally more efficient
than halogens (despite the bullshit in the Jaycar catalogue - which I have
already called them about). That places them a long way behind fluoros and
even further behind HID lighting.

The only statement as to the efficiency of these new LEDs is that
"Keith claims an 80% reduction in power necessary to run these
lights". I presume this is in comparison with incandescents, not
fluoros, which would make these LEDs no more efficient than other
LEDs, but the article is ambiguous on this point.

Smells like bullshit to me. I'd like to see the numbers.

.... from an independent testing laboratory.

His ABC bio states that "he’s currently working on a new
super-efficient car engine that will have only a handful of parts".

More snake oil?

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

His " electronic insemination probe " must be a real DOOZEY !!

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm

A loaded dildo?

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"
"Phil Allison"

AIUI, he hasn't patented his idea, preferring to rely on secrecy to
protect his IP.

** He clearly has not got an original or patentable idea, a fully working
prototype or anything else.

So there is nothing to protect.




......... Phil

 

[Glenn]

"Franc Zabkar"
"Phil Allison"





** He clearly has not got an original or patentable idea, a fully working
prototype or anything else.

So there is nothing to protect.

........ Phil

I saw the show and certainly thought the claims sounded dubious.
However, as I recall, he did not talk about redesigning the lens but
the actual wafer. (This sounds even harder to believe, but that's
what I recall was said).

Glenn