Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High efficiency flat light source could be the end for the light bulb
Gizmag ^ | 4/19/2006 | Staff

Posted on 04/19/2006 10:57:35 AM PDT by Neville72

High efficiency flat light source could be the end for the light bulb

April 19, 2006 The end of the lightbulb is nigh! Scientists studying organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs) have made a critical leap from single-color displays to a highly efficient and long-lived natural light source. The invention is the latest fruit of a 13-year OLED research program led by Mark Thompson, professor of chemistry at USC and Stephen Forrest of the University of Michigan. If the device can be mass-manufactured cheaply - a realistic expectation, according to Thompson - interior lighting could look vastly different in the future. Almost any surface in a home, whether flat or curved, could become a light source: walls, curtains, ceilings, cabinets or tables. Since OLEDs are transparent when turned off, the devices could even be installed as windows or skylights to mimic the feel of natural light after dark - or to serve as the ultimate inconspicuous flat-panel television.

"This process will enable us to get 100 percent efficiency out of a single, broad spectrum light source," Thompson said.

Thompson and Forrest previously invented efficient single- color displays now ready to enter the market in next-generation cell phones. But subsequent attempts by several groups to create white-light OLEDs fell short. The biggest issue was the fast burnout time of the blue component, since blue is one of the primary colors needed to make white.

The Nature paper presents a quantum mechanical trick that solves this problem. First, the researchers followed their standard recipe for making an OLED: placing four ultra-thin organic layers on glass or transparent plastic. Three of the layers serve as highways for charges to reach a central "emissive" layer.

When the oppositely charged molecules meet in the emissive layer, electrons jump from the negatively charged molecules to the positive ones, and ultimately relax to their starting energy. In the process, light is emitted, which can be tuned to cover a broad range of wavelengths.

Previous OLEDs used phosphorescent blue, green and red dyes to generate light with greater energy efficiency than all-fluorescence based devices (phosphorescence and fluorescence, both expressions of energy that is released as excited electrons fall back into their regular orbit, differ mainly in the speed of their response).

Thompson and Forrest found that they could substitute a fluorescent dye for blue without sacrificing the superior properties of OLEDs.

In fact, the researchers reported, the fluorescent dye should prolong the lifetime of the blue component and also uses 20 percent less energy. "We're hoping this will lead to significantly longer device lifetimes in addition to higher efficiency," Thompson said.

According to Forrest, the device eventually could achieve three times the efficiency of standard incandescent light bulbs.

"With a future emphasis on manufacturing technology, this structure may provide an important, low-cost and efficient means that will replace incandescent lighting in many different applications," Forrest wrote.

The tallest remaining hurdle to production of these devices may have nothing to do with the OLED itself, Thompson said, but with the plastic layer to be used as a backing in economical large-area devices. All mass-produced plastics allow some humidity to pass through to the OLED, eventually degrading it.

"There's no plastic that's hermetic enough to make devices that will last a long period," Thompson said, while predicting that this problem can be solved. Already, Universal Display Corp. has developed the group's research into a commercially feasible process for making cell phone screens.

Funding for the research came from the Department of Energy and Universal Display Corp., which holds exclusive licensing rights to the group's OLED inventions.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: leds; lightbulb; lighting; technology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2006 10:57:38 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Neville72

WOW!!!!!!


2 posted on 04/19/2006 10:59:52 AM PDT by joe fonebone (When did being white, christian and conservative become a criminal offense?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

> 100 percent efficiency

Errrrrr.....


3 posted on 04/19/2006 11:00:59 AM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
According to Forrest, the device eventually could achieve three times the efficiency of standard incandescent light bulbs.

Oooo, all the way up to match fluorescent.

4 posted on 04/19/2006 11:04:14 AM PDT by Professional Engineer (On May 5th, in the United States, nothing happened.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

I blame Bush...


5 posted on 04/19/2006 11:04:14 AM PDT by talleyman (Kerry & the Surrender-Donkey Treasoncrats - trashing the troops for 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
"This process will enable us to get 100 percent efficiency out of a single, broad spectrum light source," Thompson said.

Uh huh...

6 posted on 04/19/2006 11:06:22 AM PDT by null and void (Pay no attention to the imam behind the curtain...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
"This process will enable us to get 100 percent efficiency out of a single, broad spectrum light source,"

[...]

According to Forrest, the device eventually could achieve three times the efficiency of standard incandescent light bulbs.

There's a pretty big gap between those two statements. Further, they aren't even talking about a broad spectrum source, but rather a multi-frequency source that matches up to our optical pigments (though assuming no hidden side-effects, that's better for common usage).

7 posted on 04/19/2006 11:09:21 AM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
There are actually hermetic plastics but they wouldn't be transparent and they aren't all plastic. For example, metalized Mylar or a form of polyethylene is hermetic. It is used extensively in snack food packaging. Other plastics can be metalized as well. There are coatings so very thin that pass some wavelengths of light and appear transparent (sunglass mirrors). I don't think it is a stopper from what I know of the problem.
8 posted on 04/19/2006 11:09:27 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Errrrrr.....

yeah yeah...
Picky picky picky...

9 posted on 04/19/2006 11:09:41 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Professional Engineer

It might be better than fluorescent if it's flat instead of curved or bulbous or whatever. A not-insignificant portion of the light coming out of the standard bulb is going back into the fixture. In fluorescents, you undoubtedly lose some of that light that comes out of one side of the curly-cue and goes across the middle to the other side. I wonder if that's already part of their calculations -- "loss due to geometrically-related absorption and diffusion" or somesuch.


10 posted on 04/19/2006 11:11:42 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

ping


11 posted on 04/19/2006 11:11:57 AM PDT by Fred911 (YOU GET WHAT YOU ACCEPT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
100 percent efficiency

The only real problem is the massive amount of neutrinos generated as the entire light fixture turns into pure radiant energy, but they plan to fix that too, as soon as they scrape the outlines of the R&D researchers off the wall of the test lab...

12 posted on 04/19/2006 11:13:53 AM PDT by 50sDad (ST3d: Real Star Trek 3d Chess: http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes/tactical.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

There has always been cool new stuff. This might be more of it.


13 posted on 04/19/2006 11:14:12 AM PDT by Protagoras (The world is full of successful idiots and genius failures.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
100 percent efficiency and only 3 times a efficient as an incandescent light bulb. Yeah right it's not adding up. It should be way more efficient than that given the heat the incandescent light bulb makes.
14 posted on 04/19/2006 11:16:22 AM PDT by reagandemo (The battle is near are you ready for the sacrifice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
There is a product called LightStrip that is used in spacecraft modeling...ever make one of those Starship Enterprise models, and you couldn't get an even glow across the nacelles? Lightstrip is a phosphor-covered plastic sheet with electrodes at each end; you have a transformer that takes your 5VDC up to thousands of volts at VERY low amperage, and the entire sheet glows. You can cut it, twist it, shape it...

If they can make this work, THINK of the cool nerd applications! Fridges with controls like the Enterprise! My mind boggles at the cool possibilities!!!!

15 posted on 04/19/2006 11:17:06 AM PDT by 50sDad (ST3d: Real Star Trek 3d Chess: http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes/tactical.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

100% efficient... the problem is that if there is a flaw in the factory and you get even a 101% efficient one....

it will get brighter and brighter and you wont be able to turn it off...AND THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BE LIT UP FOREVER!!!


16 posted on 04/19/2006 11:18:11 AM PDT by KneelBeforeZod (I have five dollars for each of you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I imagine that in context this means that all the energy supplied to the LED is emitted as visible light, lacking the large IR component of incadescent and ultraviolet bulbs.


17 posted on 04/19/2006 11:20:40 AM PDT by leoncaruthers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Errrrrr.....

Caught my eye, too.... Perhaps he didn't mean that in the fully technical sense of the term, but rather a more "squeeze as many photons out of the thing as we can" sort of way?

18 posted on 04/19/2006 11:21:11 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neville72; orionblamblam

I expect that statement is probably a misquote by the journo- the engineer probably said something along the lines of "close to 100%", which is feasible with electical devices.


19 posted on 04/19/2006 11:21:53 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Yay! It's Riding Season!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
"The Nature paper presents a quantum mechanical trick that solves this problem."

So how will we know if the light is on or off? Will we have to keep a supply of cats around to tell?
20 posted on 04/19/2006 11:23:38 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson