September 26, 2008 at 13:42Let there be light! (from)
In our world, there is not a single area left where Scientific Technical Progress has not looked. Auto milkmaids, drinkers, robots, vacuum cleaners and auto-washing urinals are tightly entering our lives :) Moreover, such a necessary thing as an NTP bulb is constantly being upgraded. So let's start the routine ...
In fact, the long-liver of our chandeliers and floor lamps, which did not have long to force our eyes and electric meters. The reason for this is low profitability - 10-20 lumens per watt, a limited spectrum of the glow of the tungsten filament, which they try to correct with different spraying-filling flasks and a relatively short service life (although there are enough modern ones for a year). I hope that it makes no sense to talk about the principles of operation of this dinosaur.
Gas discharge, arc discharge, etc. The main difference from an incandescent lamp is that the main luminous flux is generated not by a tungsten filament, but by the glow of the internal medium under the influence of breakdown. As a rule, light in this case requires filtering for the human eye, therefore, all such lamps have an internal spraying that cuts off the unnecessary spectrum (for example, UV) and removes radiation peaks that are unpleasant for the eye. High efficiency (40-50 lumens per watt) compared to incandescent lamps and a longer service life leads to the gradual replacement of these lamps in homes. The only obstacle why they did not supplant "ordinary bulbs" is a 10-20 times higher cost, which is caused by the complexity of the lamp itself and the scheme of its "inclusion" in the operating mode.
Very economical sources of WEAK power up to 70 lumens per watt (although there are exceptions ). In fact, they have already completely replaced incandescent lamps from portable light sources. Modern LEDs are quite durable, but whimsical to the current operating parameters. Although luminosity also decreases with the service life, for flashlights it is not so important. These sources are still more expensive than fluorescent lamps of the same light intensity, as they are assemblies of several LEDs and rectifier circuits to prevent failure.
These sources were developed already back in 1992, but the high price at that time led to low prevalence. The principle of operation of such a source is as follows: a microwave resonator inside a special bulb that does not allow microwave radiation to pass out causes luminescence of sulfur-containing gas inside, light is output from the bulb outside through the light guide. Such lamps have many advantages:
PS Personally, I have already felt the benefit of “economical” lamps, after replacing all the lamps in the house with “economical”, the electricity charge has decreased exactly twice, which leads to a payback of one such lamp for 0.5-1 months.
PPS Inaccuracies and errors are quite possible, I am open to criticism :)
Incandescent lamps
In fact, the long-liver of our chandeliers and floor lamps, which did not have long to force our eyes and electric meters. The reason for this is low profitability - 10-20 lumens per watt, a limited spectrum of the glow of the tungsten filament, which they try to correct with different spraying-filling flasks and a relatively short service life (although there are enough modern ones for a year). I hope that it makes no sense to talk about the principles of operation of this dinosaur.
Fluorescent lamps
Gas discharge, arc discharge, etc. The main difference from an incandescent lamp is that the main luminous flux is generated not by a tungsten filament, but by the glow of the internal medium under the influence of breakdown. As a rule, light in this case requires filtering for the human eye, therefore, all such lamps have an internal spraying that cuts off the unnecessary spectrum (for example, UV) and removes radiation peaks that are unpleasant for the eye. High efficiency (40-50 lumens per watt) compared to incandescent lamps and a longer service life leads to the gradual replacement of these lamps in homes. The only obstacle why they did not supplant "ordinary bulbs" is a 10-20 times higher cost, which is caused by the complexity of the lamp itself and the scheme of its "inclusion" in the operating mode.
LED sources
Very economical sources of WEAK power up to 70 lumens per watt (although there are exceptions ). In fact, they have already completely replaced incandescent lamps from portable light sources. Modern LEDs are quite durable, but whimsical to the current operating parameters. Although luminosity also decreases with the service life, for flashlights it is not so important. These sources are still more expensive than fluorescent lamps of the same light intensity, as they are assemblies of several LEDs and rectifier circuits to prevent failure.
Microwave discharge sources
These sources were developed already back in 1992, but the high price at that time led to low prevalence. The principle of operation of such a source is as follows: a microwave resonator inside a special bulb that does not allow microwave radiation to pass out causes luminescence of sulfur-containing gas inside, light is output from the bulb outside through the light guide. Such lamps have many advantages:
- - generate light optimal for the human eye - the distribution of power over the spectrum almost coincides with the sensitivity of the human eye
- -Economy - a little over 100 lumens per watt
- - Long service life - tens of thousands of hours
- Luminosity actually linearly depends on the power of the microwave pump
PS Personally, I have already felt the benefit of “economical” lamps, after replacing all the lamps in the house with “economical”, the electricity charge has decreased exactly twice, which leads to a payback of one such lamp for 0.5-1 months.
PPS Inaccuracies and errors are quite possible, I am open to criticism :)