Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Philips EcoBoost Halogen Lamps

P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've read the following press announcement several times, but I'm
still confused as to how this technology works. For example, we're
told the lamp burner runs "cooler" and thereby produces more light
and, in my naivety, I thought incandescent and halogen lamp efficiency
worked opposite to this.

See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

I guess I have two questions. One, does this lamp, in effect, combine
two technologies -- an IR capsule coating and an integrated
low-voltage transformer -- and, secondly, did this press release lose
something in its translation?

Cheers,
Paul
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
I've read the following press announcement several times, but I'm
still confused as to how this technology works. For example, we're
told the lamp burner runs "cooler" and thereby produces more light
and, in my naivety, I thought incandescent and halogen lamp efficiency
worked opposite to this.

See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

I guess I have two questions. One, does this lamp, in effect, combine
two technologies -- an IR capsule coating and an integrated
low-voltage transformer -- and, secondly, did this press release lose
something in its translation?

The press release is definitely confusing. From the lower
photo is it obvious that this lamp uses a line voltage to
low voltage converter. From the efficacy claims I would
suspect the lamp uses IR reflector technology, but it is not
clear. It is also not clear if the "burner" is the filament
tube or the filament itself. If the filament tube then the
"special compound" is probably an IR reflecting coating,
which reflects heat back onto the filament. It does not
conduct heat away as stated. If the burner is the filament,
then Philips has succeeded in developing a selective
emitting coating for the filament that suppresses some of
the IR radiation. Various organizations have been working
toward this goal for 10 to 20 years, but no one has yet been
successful.

Remember also that the efficacy gains are given in
comparison with 220 to 240-volt incandescent lamps, which
are significantly less efficient than 120-volt incandescent
lamps. For example, a 100-watt, 120-volt, 750-hour
incandescent lamps has an efficacy of about 16.9 lm/W while
I believe the 240-volt version of this lamp has an efficacy
between 13 and 14 lm/W.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
 
S

Simon Waldman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul said:
See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

I guess I have two questions. One, does this lamp, in effect, combine
two technologies -- an IR capsule coating and an integrated
low-voltage transformer -- and, secondly, did this press release lose
something in its translation?

To the latter, definitely. It's far from clear.

I saw the CHL-i lamp recently in Frankfurt. It is, AFAICS, a low-voltage
halogen capsule with a transformer crammed into a GLS bulb (or a candle,
or whatever). Neat, though I didn't think at the time to ask whether it
was dimmable. It seems entirely possible that the capsule has an
infra-red coating, but I don't know whether it actually does.
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
The press release is definitely confusing. From the lower
photo is it obvious that this lamp uses a line voltage to
low voltage converter. From the efficacy claims I would
suspect the lamp uses IR reflector technology, but it is not
clear. It is also not clear if the "burner" is the filament
tube or the filament itself. If the filament tube then the
"special compound" is probably an IR reflecting coating,
which reflects heat back onto the filament. It does not
conduct heat away as stated. If the burner is the filament,
then Philips has succeeded in developing a selective
emitting coating for the filament that suppresses some of
the IR radiation. Various organizations have been working
toward this goal for 10 to 20 years, but no one has yet been
successful.

I suspect your hunch is correct. It makes good sense, at least from
an efficiency point of view, to combine the two technologies.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised (and disappointed) GE's Diamond
Precise lamp doesn't, given the incremental cost of incorporating an
IR coating is likely to be relatively small and the boost in light
output would be rather significant, perhaps in the order of 50 per
cent (i.e., from 260 to 400 lumens).
Remember also that the efficacy gains are given in
comparison with 220 to 240-volt incandescent lamps, which
are significantly less efficient than 120-volt incandescent
lamps. For example, a 100-watt, 120-volt, 750-hour
incandescent lamps has an efficacy of about 16.9 lm/W while
I believe the 240-volt version of this lamp has an efficacy
between 13 and 14 lm/W.

Indeed. When I would visit my parents in the U.K., I was always
struck by the noticeably reduced light output and lower colour
temperature; every incandescent lamp looked like it was dimmed about
25 per cent.

Cheers,
Paul
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
I saw the CHL-i lamp recently in Frankfurt. It is, AFAICS, a low-voltage
halogen capsule with a transformer crammed into a GLS bulb (or a candle,
or whatever). Neat, though I didn't think at the time to ask whether it
was dimmable. It seems entirely possible that the capsule has an
infra-red coating, but I don't know whether it actually does.

GE's Diamond Precise lamp is, in fact, dimmable (I have roughly thirty
of these lamps in my home) . That said, I had to remove the dimmers
on these circuits because the LOUD buzzing from these lamps was so
damn annoying (if you closed your eyes, you would swear you were
locked inside a transformer vault).

I honestly don't know if I recieved a bad batch or if this is a design
limitation -- my (repeated) inquiries with GE's customer support group
went unanswered. :(

Cheers,
Paul
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Joe,

I run Netscape 7.2, so I too share your pain. And, yes, I wish more
web designers would wake up to the fact that it's a big world out
there and not all of us use IE.

Like you, I have considerable respect for Philips. I applaud their
social responsibility and, in particular, their efforts to minimize
the environmental impact of their products. It's a shame this
particular press release only clouds our understanding of what could
very well be a major step forward in halogen lighting.

BTW, this recent Philips announcement certainly caused me serious neck
snap! Their 25 and 32-watt Extra Long Life T8 fluorescent lamps have
a rated life of 40,000 hours on standard instant start ballasts and
46,000 hours on programmed start (12 hours per start). And, of
course, longer service life means re-lamping intervals can be extended
an additional two, three or more years, resulting in less disruption
to operations, lower maintenance costs and reduced material waste.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-5794.pdf
and
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/catalogs/p-5795.pdf

Cheers,
Paul
 
J

John McFerren

Jan 1, 1970
0
In Firefox you just resize the window, I don't know about Netscape.
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi John,

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem possible with Netscape. Moreover, if
you try to reposition this miniaturized window, it immediately snaps
back to the centre of the screen.

Cheers,
Paul
 
T

Travis Evans

Jan 1, 1970
0
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem possible with Netscape. Moreover, if
you try to reposition this miniaturized window, it immediately snaps
back to the centre of the screen.

What about disabling Javascript's ability to move and resize existing
windows? In Firefox 1.5 it's in Preferences under Content > Advanced
button next to Enable Javascript. In Netscape and other versions of
Firefox it's probably somewhere else.
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Travis,

Thank you for helping me resolve TWO vexing problems. I've made one
minor adjustment to your recommendation. If I turn off Javascript
completely, the Philips site (and no doubt others like it) becomes a
complete mess (literally). However, Netscape permits me to turn off
selected script commands, including one that controls the movement AND
resizing of windows (whoohoo, pay dirt!)

The steps to do this are as follows:
Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Scripts & Plug-ins. Within the "Allow
Scripts to" window, remove the checkmark beside the "Move or resize
existing windows" entry (the first item within this list), then click
"OK". Problem solved.

Thanks again for helping me correct these annoyances; your assistance
is very much appreciated.

Cheers,
Paul
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
For those who may have missed the announcement, it appears these lamps
will be sold under the "Edore" name and will be available for purchase
later this year.

"One of Philips’s revolutionary products in this respect is an energy
saving halogen bulb for the home -- called Edore. It offers clear
crisp lighting and uses 50% less energy than the ordinary household
bulb. Available in the second half of 2007, the Edore is a retrofit
halogen bulb that can be used in a normal fitting."

Source:
http://www.newscenter.philips.com/About/News/press/article-15721.html

In terms of luminous efficacy, is it reasonable to assume these
products will be more or less comparable to GE's forthcoming (first
generation) high efficiency lamp (i.e., ~ 30 lpw)? And is GE still
targeting commercial release sometime in 2010? [Hate to sound
impatient, but I'm kinda hoping we might see them sooner.]

Source:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal...120&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1001109&vnsId=681

Cheers,
Paul
 
T

TKM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul M. Eldridge said:
For those who may have missed the announcement, it appears these lamps
will be sold under the "Edore" name and will be available for purchase
later this year.

"One of Philips’s revolutionary products in this respect is an energy
saving halogen bulb for the home -- called Edore. It offers clear
crisp lighting and uses 50% less energy than the ordinary household
bulb. Available in the second half of 2007, the Edore is a retrofit
halogen bulb that can be used in a normal fitting."

Source:
http://www.newscenter.philips.com/About/News/press/article-15721.html

In terms of luminous efficacy, is it reasonable to assume these
products will be more or less comparable to GE's forthcoming (first
generation) high efficiency lamp (i.e., ~ 30 lpw)? And is GE still
targeting commercial release sometime in 2010? [Hate to sound
impatient, but I'm kinda hoping we might see them sooner.]

Source:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal...120&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1001109&vnsId=681

Cheers,
Paul

From the limited technical information in the announcements I'm guessing
that the initial "high-efficacy" incandescent lamps use halogen technology
with heat reflecting films. Philips, OSI and GE have had commercial
products for some time; so it makes sense to move that experience into
consumer products. What technology is involved in GE's second generation
products, I don't know -- perhaps ceramic filaments which have been
discussed in the research literature. Any other guesses?

Terry McGowan
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul M. Eldridge said:
For those who may have missed the announcement, it appears these lamps
will be sold under the "Edore" name and will be available for purchase
later this year.

"One of Philips’s revolutionary products in this respect is an energy
saving halogen bulb for the home -- called Edore. It offers clear
crisp lighting and uses 50% less energy than the ordinary household
bulb. Available in the second half of 2007, the Edore is a retrofit
halogen bulb that can be used in a normal fitting."

Source:
http://www.newscenter.philips.com/About/News/press/article-15721.html

In terms of luminous efficacy, is it reasonable to assume these
products will be more or less comparable to GE's forthcoming (first
generation) high efficiency lamp (i.e., ~ 30 lpw)? And is GE still
targeting commercial release sometime in 2010? [Hate to sound
impatient, but I'm kinda hoping we might see them sooner.]

Source:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal...120&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1001109&vnsId=681

Cheers,
Paul

From the limited technical information in the announcements I'm guessing
that the initial "high-efficacy" incandescent lamps use halogen technology
with heat reflecting films. Philips, OSI and GE have had commercial
products for some time; so it makes sense to move that experience into
consumer products. What technology is involved in GE's second generation
products, I don't know -- perhaps ceramic filaments which have been
discussed in the research literature. Any other guesses?

The evidence is point to new filament materials, ceramic or
otherwise.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
The evidence is point to new filament materials, ceramic or
otherwise.

Thanks, Terry and Victor, for confirming this. In addition to the IR
coatings, the Philips product includes an integral transformer, which
obviously kicks things up a notch or two. I'm guessing the first
generation GE offerings will too.

Ceramic filaments -- either alone or in combination with IR coatings
-- would be a huge step forward. Any sense of what we could expect in
terms of filament life?

Cheers,
Paul
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thanks, Terry and Victor, for confirming this. In addition to the IR
coatings, the Philips product includes an integral transformer, which
obviously kicks things up a notch or two. I'm guessing the first
generation GE offerings will too.

Ceramic filaments -- either alone or in combination with IR coatings
-- would be a huge step forward. Any sense of what we could expect in
terms of filament life?

As with any other filament material, life will be a
trade-off against temperature and therefore efficacy. Based
on the way things have been done in the past, as we can see
from halogen IR lamps, life has been made longer than
conventional lamps, at some sacrifice in efficacy, since
people seem more willing to pay for longer life than higher
efficacy. With the new push for energy reduction, it will
be interesting to see if the marketing rules change.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
 
J

James D. Hooker

Jan 1, 1970
0
The GE press releases on this subject talk about new materials, so I am
leaning more to the belief that they're maybe focussing on filaments that
make better emitters of visible light. Or maybe someone has finally figured
out how to make a practical anti-stokes phosphor that converts infra-red
into visible light ;-)

If GE was simply going to copy the principle of the Philips EcoBoost, they'd
have a lamp on the market by next year. It's all known technology, so it
makes me think they must be looking at something much more advanced.

Incidentally the first Philips EcoBoost lamps went on sale earlier this
month in France. It's rated 20W and aims to replace 40W incandescent with
410 lumens output. That puts it at 20.5 lumens per watt. They claim
"Average Life Up to 3000 hours". Price was about 15 Euros. That brings it
in at about five times the retail price of Philips CFLs. Given that the CFL
uses half as much energy again and lasts 8000 hours they obviously need to
bring the price down considerably if it's going to compete!

James.
 
J

James D. Hooker

Jan 1, 1970
0
The GE press releases on this subject talk about new materials, so I am
leaning more to the belief that they're maybe focussing on filaments that
make better emitters of visible light. Or maybe someone has finally figured
out how to make a practical anti-stokes phosphor that converts infra-red
into visible light ;-) They talk of lasting roughly half as long as CFLs
but being a lot cheaper, so I would guess something around 3000-4000 hours.

If GE was simply going to copy the principle of the Philips EcoBoost, they'd
have a lamp on the market by next year. It's all known technology, so it
makes me think they must be looking at something much more advanced.

Incidentally the first Philips EcoBoost lamps went on sale earlier this
month in France. It's rated 20W and aims to replace 40W incandescent with
410 lumens output. That puts it at 20.5 lumens per watt. They claim
"Average Life Up to 3000 hours". Price was about 15 Euros. That brings it
in at about five times the retail price of Philips CFLs. Given that the CFL
uses half as much energy again and lasts 8000 hours they obviously need to
bring the price down considerably if it's going to compete!

James.
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
The GE press releases on this subject talk about new materials, so I am
leaning more to the belief that they're maybe focussing on filaments that
make better emitters of visible light. Or maybe someone has finally figured
out how to make a practical anti-stokes phosphor that converts infra-red
into visible light ;-) They talk of lasting roughly half as long as CFLs
but being a lot cheaper, so I would guess something around 3000-4000 hours.

If GE was simply going to copy the principle of the Philips EcoBoost, they'd
have a lamp on the market by next year. It's all known technology, so it
makes me think they must be looking at something much more advanced.

Incidentally the first Philips EcoBoost lamps went on sale earlier this
month in France. It's rated 20W and aims to replace 40W incandescent with
410 lumens output. That puts it at 20.5 lumens per watt. They claim
"Average Life Up to 3000 hours". Price was about 15 Euros. That brings it
in at about five times the retail price of Philips CFLs. Given that the CFL
uses half as much energy again and lasts 8000 hours they obviously need to
bring the price down considerably if it's going to compete!

James.

Thanks, James, for confirming this. Although I was sort of hoping the
numbers might come in a little higher, I guess 20.5 lumens per watt is
about all you can expect at this lower wattage.

As a point of reference, Philip's 20MRC16/IRC/FL36 is rated at 400
lumens (20 lpw) and their 35 and 45 watt versions come in at 870 and
1180 lumens respectively (24.8 & 26.2 lpw). Osram Sylvania's
50BT4Q/IR clocks in at 1,320 lumens (26.4 lpw). These numbers do not
include transformer losses, so the actual lpw ratings would be
slightly lower.

Given that the GE offerings are intended to be 60 and 100-watt GS
replacements, I'm guessing 25 to 28 lumens per watt would be
achievable using current technology (i.e., integral transformer and IR
coatings) and assuming a 3,000 hour service life.

Cheers,
Paul
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
James D. said:
Incidentally the first Philips EcoBoost lamps went on sale earlier this
month in France. It's rated 20W and aims to replace 40W incandescent with
410 lumens output. That puts it at 20.5 lumens per watt. They claim
"Average Life Up to 3000 hours".

Paul Eldridge mentions in an earlier article in this thread an "integral
transformer" as best as I recall.

My speculation is that this is a stepdown transformer, since luminous
efficacy of an incandescent lamp design varies with design voltage even
with constant design wattage and design life expectancy. For design
wattage 20 watts and design life expectancy in the thousand hour ballpark,
it appears to me that a design voltage around 10-12 volts results in close
to maximizing luminous efficacy for such design wattage and life
expectancy.

Fairly ordinary 12 volt 20 watt halogen lamps with rated life expectancy
at least a couple thousand hours are rated to achieve 17.5 lumens/watt. I
suspect that a conservative attempt at combining a tungsten filament with
HIR technology in a 10-12-volt-ballpark halogen lamp can easily exceed
20.5 lumens/watt by a factor that will allow for transformer losses.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
V

Victor Roberts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul Eldridge mentions in an earlier article in this thread an "integral
transformer" as best as I recall.

My speculation is that this is a stepdown transformer, since luminous
efficacy of an incandescent lamp design varies with design voltage even
with constant design wattage and design life expectancy. For design
wattage 20 watts and design life expectancy in the thousand hour ballpark,
it appears to me that a design voltage around 10-12 volts results in close
to maximizing luminous efficacy for such design wattage and life
expectancy.

Fairly ordinary 12 volt 20 watt halogen lamps with rated life expectancy
at least a couple thousand hours are rated to achieve 17.5 lumens/watt. I
suspect that a conservative attempt at combining a tungsten filament with
HIR technology in a 10-12-volt-ballpark halogen lamp can easily exceed
20.5 lumens/watt by a factor that will allow for transformer losses.

After Light Fair 2006 I received confirmation from either
Osram or Philips that their lamp did contain an electronic
power supply to run the filament at reduced voltage. The
first generation of high performance incandescent lamps
clearly use low voltage + halogen + IR. The open question
is: what new technology will be added to the next
generation?


--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
 
Top