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

[Dave Goldfinch]

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

What really annoys me (apart from that teminally patronising
presenter!) is the readiness of the panel to endorse virtually
anything that appears on the show. To my knowledge, they have never
said "This is a load of %$#@ ! Forget it !!"

In this case, the total absence of any verifiable figures should have
precluded Higgins from the show instead of which he gets the prize for
the evening !

Dave

 

[Geoff C]

It occured to me that a possible configuration of the invention
is simply a circuit to make the LED's conduct at the peak of the
mains waves, to use the low duty cycle and high peak currents
for high illumination hence the high current quoted as about 400
mA. Nothing new there I'd say. This would have horrible power
factor/harmonics too.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Geoff C"

It occured to me that a possible configuration of the invention
is simply a circuit to make the LED's conduct at the peak of the
mains waves, to use the low duty cycle and high peak currents
for high illumination hence the high current quoted as about 400
mA. Nothing new there I'd say. This would have horrible power
factor/harmonics too.

** But not nearly as bad as a CFL, most SMPS, triac dimmers and a host of
transformer isolated electronic devices that draw current at the AC voltage
peaks.

Click on the sub heading " Power Factor " and scroll down to my CRO
screen pics - figs 11 and 12.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf




........ Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Dave Goldfinch"

What really annoys me (apart from that teminally patronising
presenter!) is the readiness of the panel to endorse virtually
anything that appears on the show. To my knowledge, they have never
said "This is a load of %$#@ ! Forget it !!"

** Hardly likely - as there is a selection and vetting process before any
" invention" gets on the show.

Plus the ABC could easily face a defamation action if you scenario were
ever carried out.

In this case, the total absence of any verifiable figures should have
precluded Higgins from the show instead of which he gets the prize for
the evening !

** Could be they were trapped into doing that - once the item was on air.

Higgins had to get the prize, or they were treating his claims as fake and
him as a charlatan.





........ Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

** Hardly likely - as there is a selection and vetting process before any
" invention" gets on the show.

Too bad it's insufficient. LOTS of examples have passed through their doors
that have not only already been invent, it was years ago and already on the
market.

Plus the ABC could easily face a defamation action if you scenario were
ever carried out.

It's an entertainment program. Anyone can claim anything. Fortunately,
their viewers have more sense than their panel.

** Could be they were trapped into doing that - once the item was on air.

Possible if their fact checkers picked it up too late to get another entry
in time.

Higgins had to get the prize, or they were treating his claims as fake and
him as a charlatan.

But they've never done that before, so I don't see them starting now.


And yes, I did recognise your name this time.
So for your benefit: "Bite me".

 

[John Tserkezis]

It occured to me that a possible configuration of the invention
is simply a circuit to make the LED's conduct at the peak of the
mains waves, to use the low duty cycle and high peak currents
for high illumination hence the high current quoted as about 400
mA. Nothing new there I'd say. This would have horrible power
factor/harmonics too.

This is all fixable though. With PF correction electronics.
I don't think he's trying though, because that would make sense, (this goes
against the other vague data we've seen from this inventor), and it would
require electronics control (which he implies there is none).

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tjerkshis"



** Next time you feel like dumping a load of SHIT somewhere.

Use the damn dunny - FUCKWIT !!





........ Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

** Next time you feel like dumping a load of SHIT somewhere.

Use the damn dunny - FUCKWIT !!

I just did.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tjerkshis"


** Next time you feel like dumping a load of SHIT somewhere.

Use the damn dunny - FUCKWIT !!






........ Phil

 

[a t e c 7 7]

Phil Allison wrote:


How about you try typing with both hands above the desk top instead of
having one dick grabbing apendage jammed firmly down your own shorts or
those of your boyfriend philthy .

 

[Franc Zabkar]

What really annoys me (apart from that teminally patronising
presenter!) is the readiness of the panel to endorse virtually
anything that appears on the show. To my knowledge, they have never
said "This is a load of %$#@ ! Forget it !!"

In this case, the total absence of any verifiable figures should have
precluded Higgins from the show instead of which he gets the prize for
the evening !

Dave

IIRC, the "Gemini Electric Motor" was one of those inventions whose
inner workings were fully disclosed but no test data were available:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1201795.htm

The panel treated it with skepticism and basically said that they
would need to see the numbers before they could be convinced. However,
they were diplomatic about it.

The inventor's web site (http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/) still
doesn't have any numbers, but he makes the claim that the motor "is
capable of handling twice the power of a same size conventional motor
and while doing so, remaining at the high efficiencies that PM motors
are capable of".

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Geoff C]

"Geoff C"


** But not nearly as bad as a CFL, most SMPS, triac dimmers
and a host of transformer isolated electronic devices that
draw current at the AC voltage peaks.

Click on the sub heading " Power Factor " and scroll down
to my CRO screen pics - figs 11 and 12.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#pf




....... Phil

Yeah, thats true. I did not see the particular inventors show
or view the online video, but I assume power factor was not
even whispered.

I have speed read/skimmed that article before. The author has
a good writing style for semi-technical people to understand,
plus his comments about thinking of a CFL as a 30 watt rather
than a 15 watt device is well put.

 

[Mr.T]

This is all fixable though. With PF correction electronics.
I don't think he's trying though, because that would make sense, (this goes
against the other vague data we've seen from this inventor), and it would
require electronics control (which he implies there is none).

Of course there is, the LED's can't be 240V surely.

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

"Dave Goldfinch"




** Hardly likely - as there is a selection and vetting process before any
" invention" gets on the show.

Plus the ABC could easily face a defamation action if you scenario were
ever carried out.

They got away with it all the time on that Dragon's Den show on
Channel 7.

Half the fun was watching the "panel" tell the inventors their product
was complete crap, and then watching the inventors faces for the
reaction. Great television!

The New Inventors is completely limp in comparison.

Dave.

 

[Mr.T]

They got away with it all the time on that Dragon's Den show on
Channel 7.

Yes, the TV channels have lawyers to draft up suitable agreements that must
be signed before anyone appears on such a show.

Half the fun was watching the "panel" tell the inventors their product
was complete crap, and then watching the inventors faces for the
reaction. Great television!

The New Inventors is completely limp in comparison.

So true, just like most of the inventions they have.

MrT.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Of course there is, the LED's can't be 240V surely.

No, of course not. And I don't see the reason you ask this question unless
you missed the bit in this thread that places them in series - enough to give
a suitable average current, along with suitable limits for waveform peaks and
local power grid variations.

But even with small limiting resistors, that's a bit dodgy if you ask me.
It would leave the lamp set a fair bit dimmer on low voltage times/days and
bright only on high voltage times days. In some areas, you tend to get highs
and no lows, and other areas visa versa.

A nice efficient switching design would be much better. Constant
brightness, constant power consumption, and power factor correction to boot.



I still don't see why anyone would buy them though, because dollar for
dollar, halogens win hands down. Only perhaps tree huggers may buy them.

Then again, tree huggers would be living under the open sky: Plastic is
made from petrochemicals, cardboard is made from their beloved trees,
electricity creates greenhouse gas, and telephones are the product of economic
globalisation. Heaven forbid they use solar, the manufacture of the panels
would make them cringe.
Their only way to make money is to sell organic vegetables to plobs who go
to work at a globalised company that uses electricity and telephone lines.
Just so they get that warm fuzzy feeling inside. (probably the bugs that the
pesticides didn't get).

All to pay for LED lights that they can't power because they don't know what
electricity is.


Yeah, ok, I'm done ranting now.

 

[Sally]

Unfortunately it's useless killfiling the invariably horrible Phil, becuase
the rest of you will keep on (Usenet outdated syndrome) quoting him!

 

[John Tserkezis]

Unfortunately it's useless killfiling the invariably horrible Phil, becuase
the rest of you will keep on (Usenet outdated syndrome) quoting him!

Yeah sorry, it makes sense. I won't quote him in future.

No great loss, he doesn't have anything of substance to say anyway...

 

[Sally]

Thanks John!

Yeah sorry, it makes sense. I won't quote him in future.

No great loss, he doesn't have anything of substance to say anyway...

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tjserks itself off "



** YOU cannot read.

YOU are a grossly autistic, illiterate MORON.


PISSSSSSSSSS OFFFFFFFFFFFF




......... Phil