|
AZ Nomad wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:43:47 -0800, Jim Baber <jim@baber.org> wrote:
>
>>Jim Baber writes:
>>They are quite expensive, but seem to be base common to regular
>>incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs.
>>
>>
>>I'd wait there are other goodies in the pipeline, One is a new
>>derivation on the LED that uses a LED to excite other diodes on the
>>inner surface of a bulb that reportedly gives the same lumen output as a
>>standard 60 W incandescent does with only 1.0 W of input power at
>>115VAC. That is much better than CFL or regular LED, but still in
>>development
>>
>>
>I find that hard to believe. Are you saying that incandescent's
>are less than 0.016% efficient (assuming that your superduper LED
>is 100% efficient)?
>
Jim replies:
Those are the numbers in the Scientific American article not mine.
-
Jim Baber
Email jim@NOJUNKbaber.org
1350 W Mesa Ave.
Fresno CA, 93711
(559) 435-9068
(559) 905-2204 (Verizon IN cellphone (to other Verizon IN accounts))
See 10kW grid tied solar system at "http://www.baber.org/solarpanels.jpg"
See solar system production data at "http://www.baber.org/solar_status.htm"
|
|
Re: LED lighting
