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

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

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

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.

"Geoff C"

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

....... Phil

"Dave Goldfinch"

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

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

....... Phil

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.

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

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

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".

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).

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:41:55 GMT, Dave Goldfinch put finger to keyboard and composed:

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

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

- Franc Zabkar

"Phil Allison" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net:

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.

goes

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

MrT.

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.

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

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

MrT.

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.

"David L. Jones"

You pathetic idiot.

........ Phil

"John Tserks itself off MORON "

Also claimed was a break even period of 1 year and a ten year life.

Plenty of reason to use them, if true.

YOU DUMBFUCK, HEE HAWING ASS.

....... Phil

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:58:27 +1000, John Tserkezis put finger to keyboard and composed:

The latest SC mag has an article on Ostar LED lights that are claimed to be on par with halogens for light output:

I don't have the article in front of me, but IIRC several thousand of these were installed in some European supermarket complex.

- Franc Zabkar

That's about what I would expect. However, LEDs cost a LOT more than halogens, so even allowing for reduced life in halogens compared to LEDs, halogens still win.

LEDS have their place however, especially where the long life makes up for their initial high cost. Such as high ceilings, or difficult to access light fixtures.

What I'm objecting to, is the blanket comments that paint LEDs to be the end-all-be-all in lighting technology, to the determent of everything else.

Much like the CFL debate. Sure they have their place, but not as a simple drop-in replacement.

It is totally relevant.

Any time you need more money for your medication Phil, we'd all be happy to help you out, just post your PayPal address.

Dave.

"David L. Jones"

What a pathetic pile of sub human excrement is DL Jones.

The lying, gutless autistic cretin has not got one single clue about any damn thing.

Just constantly spews his brainless bullshit about for the sake of having something to say.

Peeeeeeukkkkkkkkeeeee

...... Phil