Comments on: LIGHTING: Making a Difference with High-tech Materials

By: Jane Grosslight, LC

Jane Grosslight, LC — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:13:09 +0000

Maybe throw of LEDs is not necessarily the issue. LEDs do not need to try and imitate incandescent or fluorescent sources. They can illuminate differently–be a wall of light -giving elements; be a table top of light; or be lighted clothing that walks around with us. Let’s think out of the box with this exciting light source!

By: links for 2007-10-01 « Rob Edwards: Collection of my daily bookmarks: roedward

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:18:56 +0000

[...] Inhabitat » LIGHTING: Making a Difference with High-tech Materials Posted by roedward Filed in Uncategorized [...]

By: art donovan

art donovan — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:43:43 +0000

Thank you, Inhabitat, for this great post.

Mr Willams has certainly conducted accurate research and it’s good to hear the true, empirical facts about bulbs.

However, LEDS, be they organic or inorganic, have so very far to go before they can be used as an effective alternative.

The problem with LEDs is this: The “Throw” or ability to illuminate an object at a distance, is sorely inadequate with LEDs and currently does not compare to any other type of illumination. But I’m sure that problem will be overcome in the near future.

By: M Schneider

M Schneider — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:10:11 +0000

The “2.4″ in the name of this bulb represents the frequency that the microwave oscillates at; 2.4 GHz. You might recognize that number because it is the same frequency most wireless access points and many cordless phones operate on. I recall issues with this technology causing significant interference with those two existing technologies, to the point of them not working. This concerns me a bit when a lighting source emits radiation outside of the visible spectrum, that includes incandescents that do so as heat.

Their web site indicates this technology should work on many other frequencies, that it is not limited to the 2.4 GHz range. However, the nice thing about 2.4 Ghz, is that it is the unlicensed spectrum in the US. Which means they can bleed 2.4 Ghz emmisions without having to get a FCC license.

Personally, I would like to see them improve or shield the technology to address any emissions outside the visible spectrum, and if they can’t… perhaps license a portion of the spectrum for their technology.