The major problem I have with this video: they talk about all the great characteristics of these bulbs, but they don't mention how long they are supposed to last or what the watts/lumens rate is. A ESL bulb is all well and good that it matches the spectrum that a traditional light bulb puts out, but if it uses 30W as opposed to 60, and lasts about 3 months, I'll stick with my CFLs

ESL and lighting in all it's glory, but the thing im wondering about, this being TomsHardware and all is: Will it make Crysis look any better?

Really interesting, it shows that it's simple change that can make a big impacts on our environment.

4 time the lifespan of a incandescent light bulb. For my part, I really which to know how much energy it uses...

Good one Bredmeupmate...... LOL

ESL, english second language

i got my flame suit so.......

FLAME ON!!!!!

Lighting is a huge opportunity for the right product and right company. I don't think this is one of them. The technology is questionable. Just curious... is Vu1's bulbs going to get Energy Star certified and what does that process look like?

Got a couple cases of standard 75w incandescent bulbs from Home Depot so I'm good

In the video they claim it's currently "a little over 4x the energy efficiency" of an incandescent bulb, so roughly comparable to CFL bulbs.

Modern CFL bulbs can produce very warm, balanced light. Not necessarily good enough for work where color accuracy is critical (printing, etc), but good enough that most people can't tell it's CFL unless they see the slight delay at startup.

Now for the real questions. Electrons striking a phosphor to produce light. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, something called a CRT. During the whole time they spend in the video talking about the dangers of mercury in CFL bulbs, I'm wondering about how they're shielding their bulb as I don't particularly want to be bombarded with an electron stream all day long. Which leads me to lead (Pb), specifically do they use lead shielding in the bulbs? Lead is no less dangerous than mercury. If not, how do they contain the electron beam? Also, CRTs aren't known for their efficiency.

Not saying any of this is impossible, or even unlikely, but I do have questions.

Wow... mini CRT (Cathode Ray Tube).

I thought the liquid filled bulb we saw earlier was a better innovation.

Wish the vid just started 4 mins in. Everyone knows the problems with LED and CFL bulbs, I wanna hear about your gear not someone elses lol. In all fairness u gotta mention current alternatives, but really? Half the video?

Yeah, CRTs need a minimum of shielding for X-Rays, not necessarily lead though. It's called Aquadag or something like that.

SHOOTING ELECTRONS SHIT

Also colors who the fuck cares about colors as long as i see i dont care those who care about color and aren't like artest and shit

Also how long do they last i love CFL and LED because i more or less never had to replace them in like 10 years

And how much watt does it take up shit they don't talk about any details except color and dimming lol

There is no "electron stream" outside of a CRT. X-Rays are generated by the fast deceleration of the electron beam which hits the "target" (anode). The higher the speed of electrons (and acceleration voltage), the more intensive the X-Ray radiation. Up to about 10kV there isn't any dangerous radiation generated.


Aquadag is colloidal graphite, used to get the outer electrode for the HV capacitor formed on both sides of the CRT glass (the inside one is aluminium coating at anode potential). It has no X-Ray "shielding" properties. That is obtained by lead doping of the tube glass.

Kids, aren't you learning anything any more in today's schools?

They really undervalue the CFL bulbs we are all familiar with. Sure the first generation of CFL bulbs produced poor lighting qualities, but from what I have seen, this was fixed years ago. Just stay away from the cheap CFL ones.

Does anyone know the real risks of mercury poisoning when a bulb breaks? I have broke a few myself and just cleaned it up like any other bulb. My guess is they are trying to scare you into buying their new technology.

I will stick with the bright white CFL bulbs I have been buying, perfect light IMO.

Okay, about the mercury: CFLs contain so little of it that, environmentally speaking, they more than make up for it with the amount of coal-fired electricity they save. Coal-burning plants put out more mercury than CFLs do, just by producing power. And CFLs only release mercury if they're broken. Furthermore, they don't release ALL the mercury if that happens, because as it gets used the bulb's tube actually binds up most of the mercury vapor in a form that isn't release when a break occurs.
I'm not saying it's not a problem and a health risk, I'm saying it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. It's kind of weaselly how most of the people talking up the risk of mercury in the video are actually VU1 execs or employees.
They cite a power efficiency that's pretty much the same as CFLs, but unlike their ESL a CFL can be shaped to give off light in all directions rather than spot lights, so they wouldn't really be competing in the same class as CFLs for lamp fixtures except in that niche: as it stands, you probably won't see table lamps or floor lamps with these bulbs, as is the case with LEDs.
Also, from the way they describe their ESL tech in the video, it looks like just your average cathode ray tube with electrons striking phosphors, except this blend of phosphors is chosen to give out a mix of wavelengths that produce a "warm" white light. But I don't see a reason why a similar mix of phosphors can't be used in inside a CFL tube (they both use phosphors excited by electrons to make light), so there goes their "color" argument if that's the case. They say they're working on standard, non-flood bulbs, but I don't see how they can manage it if they're using sprays of electrons like a cathode ray tube.

It's cool, however, that they're working on an alternative technology for spot/flood lights or in-ceiling accents. More technology choices means more opportunities to find greater efficiency. I just wish I could get some info on this that isn't just marketing.

wall of text

I'm looking forward to sulphur plasma lamps which are the most energy efficient lamps as of now. They also have a light spectrum that is closer to sunlight than any other artificial light source invented by man kind. The lifetime of the lamps are comparable to standard gas discharge lamps which are used as street lights.

The problem with these lamps is that they are powered by a microwave emitter (a magnetron, which can also be found in microwave ovens) which requires cooling and are hard to manufacture so that the light gets flicker free. But research is being conducted on silicon carbide circuits which can be used as a high power microwave emitter.

You may wonder how this lamp works. The answer is that it is a gas discharge lamp that uses sulphur as a light medium. The problem with sulphur is that it is very reactive to metals which makes the anode and cathode corrode. That's why noble gases are popular with gas discharge lamps. The solution for the sulphur lamp is to enclose it in a bulb made of quarz glass (which is resistant to corrosion) and let the microwave radiation ionize the sulphur which makes it fluorescent.

The guy at the end reminds me of Balmer

Seems interesting!
I'm sure it's a product with a future, probably good to start investing in on the stock market!

For those who are sticking up for compact florescent light bulbs.
Any Mercury is too much mercury when it ends up in land fills that allows it to migrate down into the water table.

By "those of you sticking up for mercury" I assume you mean me? I pointed out that CFLs pose LESS mercury risk than standard bulbs when you look at the big picture. It's an improvement and a step in the right direction.

Thanks for the clarification.

Apparently not. Wait, I graduated 25 years ago, don't remember any lessons on CRT technology then.

So far, even after the video I prefer LED. No mercury, ultra efficient, and just plain very long lasting. If color accuracy with LED's is a really pressing issue later in the life of the bulb, design a fixture or even a bulb itself with a holder for a color correction gel for where accuracy is truly important. Of course, this wouldn't be necessary everywhere, and in some places it would be a major pain in the ass, but it's one thing that could make LED's significantly better.

Great points. Here's some additional info. According to GE's website, a "typical" CFL contains about 5mg of Hg. A modern home thermostat contains about 500mg of Hg. Even if broken or improperly disposed of, it takes 100 CFL bulbs to potentially release as much Hg as one improperly disposed of thermostat.

Each 15W CFL lasts 6000 hours and saves 45W (vs the 60W incandescent it replaces), which is a savings of 270KWh per bulb. I'm not sure how much coal it takes to generate that much electricity (plus 5-10% for distribution losses), but I'm pretty sure that burning the coal will release more than 5mg of Hg. Granted, hydro, nuclear, wind, and other sources don't have the same return, but in much of the US, coal is the major source of electricity generation.

I live in Texas, so I get a secondary benefit from using CFLs, they generate less heat, which means I use less electricity cooling the house. I don't get that benefit when I have to heat the house, but around here, we use air conditioning far more than heating. Bottom line is that CFLs save me a lot of money.

LED looks promising, but it's not quite competitive in terms of light quality, color temperature, and purchase price with CFL as a replacement for incandescent bulbs. In the next 5-10 years, LED might even replace CFL, we'll see. ESL is interesting, but I'll wait and see. In the mean time, I'm a CFL user.

I'm surprised many people are bashing this new technology while ignoring the huge breakthrough they claim to have made: fully dimmable lights. Depending on your application, the ability to dim your lights the full range from 0% to 100% has been one of the major reasons to stick with standard incandescents. If they have solved this problem, that sounds like a pretty big deal to me.

Of course, also keep in mind that the average house probably WILL dispose of a hundred CFL bulbs before throwing out a thermostat. Unless I've just been lucky with the thermostats in my house.



True, I did overlook that. I guess that's what I get for not using our recessed lighting fixtures in years.

Nice theory... but it has one main problem: the mercury emitted by coal energy plants is far away from inhabited zones, the one from broken bulbs right in your room. Which one is more dangerous? While the plants can be fitted with emission reduction measures, there is no feasible way of protecting from breaking a fragile glass bulb.
All the politically correct hype for "greener" environment has a mostly neglected part: financial interests.


CFLs are low pressure gas discharge lamps (the lamps on street poles are the high pressure variety, with better efficiency, but a more complicated design: two bulbs, a small high pressure one for the gas discharge, encompassed in a larger one, which has the luminophore coating). They do not generate "electrons", the electron flux excites the mercury atoms, which generate UV radiation (another danger), which is converted in visible light by the phosphorous coating on the internal side of the (external) bulb.


You're welcome. Seems your school was lousy even 25 years ago...
No lessons about Herr Roentgen in physics?

Was just thinking it sounded like a television (using electrons slamming against phosphorous)...



I like efficient lights because:
Lighter on the power bills. I could swear my power company charges me $1 per KW... (actually, they say I use up to 3000KW a month, even though I run a single 16 amp 110V fuse, limiting my max power draw in extreme situations at 100% 24/7 use at 1200KW/month... hmm).
I have blown my fuse a few times (mainly due to a shared fusebox with my others, thus things get VERY hot, thus burning fuses).

geoffs, dimming is nothing new. There are CFL companies that offer that down to 10% or less... PureSpectrum is just one I found via a quick google search and saw mentioned on a Vu1 employee's blog... I'm assuming that's a company that Vu1 sees as their competition/are worried about for a reason.

Another... of the many problems with Vu1 is that they have no patents and no money according to their last filing. 2 things that I'd think are needed to be a powerful player in this industry. I think I read something like "if they don't find financing by October, they have to shut down operations/their going concern." Not too good of news. If this technology takes off [which they'd have to pass Energy Star, and and jump through tons of other hoops first... btw nobody answered my question re: how they are even going to pass Energy Star, and when they'll try considering their targeting to take to market mid 2010] it will be via another company.

Needless to say, there is a lot of opportunity... and I'm excited about technology in lighting, but I don't see it coming from Vu1, a company that has about run out of money and don't own their technology.

Plus, I mirror the other folks that say, they are really playing up the mercury piece to their benefit. Why not just have a little girl picking a flowers pedals, counting, until a nuke goes off in the background? Seems a bit like fearmongering.

I replaced all the bulbs in my room with CFL and it is much better than incandescant