VU1 ESL bulbs with HA dimmers?

Without more technical details on their technology, it's impossible to say if they will work with X10 or Insteon dimmers. However, the fact that the power factor is less than unity indicates they have an internal power supply and that frequently causes problems with electronic dimmers.

Their demo is impressive. If they can pull off the A bulb at a reas>I've just been reading about VU1's new ESL bulb technology (http://

Don't hold your breath. This is still smoke and mirrors. It is phospher based technology just like flourescent bulbs, but rather than using ultaviolet stimulation, they are using electron beam stimulation like an old television CRT. So the question is what is the next thing we have to worry about, X-ray emissions from our ESL bulbs?

Tagging on the Dave Houston's train of thought, With regard to X10 the ESL probably will work in everything but the two wire wall switch, which relies on a trickle of power through the filament of an incandescent bulb. But I'll be waiting to see some independent lab analysis for secondary emissions. I have feeling this is the new version of the foot/shoe X-ray machine that every shoe store had back in the 40s and 50s until it was figured out they were a big cancer hazard.

Again, without technical details one can only speculate. but I think it highly unlikely that the voltages involved will be anywhere near high enough to generate significant x-ray emissions.

Here's an IBM blurb about x-rays from CRT type computer monitors that puts it in perspective.

Don't hold your breath. This is still smoke and mirrors. It is phospher

aloe65 had written this in response to

: Pure Spectrum has now patented a CFL build that is fully dimmable(no flicker or dying out), instant on, cold to the touch, highest power factor(.96), and the energy usage is proportional to the dimming level, the light output is that of an incandescent and the price will be in the $4-$6 range. This is the answer to the NEW CFL!

The have numerous patents and are manufacturing and filling orders now worldwide. Utility companies are buying them up in the droves for their free distribution program. The utility companies love them because it costs them less to deliver the power to these bulbs due to the extremely High Power Factor. ...which means the utility companies charge you less!

The also have a dimmable ballast for linear fluorescents(yes, you will be able to dim fluorescents), also at a fraction of the cost of normal ballast due to the fewer parts that they use in the ballast. This will be huge, imagine a high rise office building in which the fluorescent lights dim with the amount of sunlight coming in,....daylight harvesting at a fraction of the cost...HUGE SAVINGS.

Hopefully the bulbs will be on Home Depot and Wal Mart shelves soon.

------------------------------------- unfrostedp> I've just been reading about VU1's new ESL bulb technology (http://

Are these phosphours not radioactive materials?

This all sounds good but time will tell if they can even deliver the first bulb.

All the CFL and LED lamps that we use that are designed to dim do so "smoothly". Is 'non-smooth ' dimming something you've personally experienced, or something that you've read/heard about? My own experiences with 'non-smooth dimming' is limited to the infamous 'full-on before dim' characteristic of X-10 ( eg WS-467) dimmers.

If what you mean is that incandescent lamps not only have a greater _range_ in actual light output (lumens) than CFLs and LEDs, but also change color temperature in a familiar and often desirable way when dimmed, then the not-yet-available ESL lamp from VU1 will not satisfy your need either (but new generation RGBx LEDs with new control mechanisms such as DMX might).

If by "local-control problems" you are asking whether they will work without a neutral conductor as the X10 WS-467 does, I wouldn't hold my breath -- partly because the consumer demand for a lamp that provides the required trickle circuit is miniscule. While we still used WS-467's the air-gap switch that was required by the use of the trickle current, those X$%# switches were the single most frequent source of Home Automation 'failure' because an unsuspecting elder or visitor or non-geek would move the air-gap switch and so 'break' the light. Set WAF back a decade.

I am generally pleased with the "good,inexpensive, high-efficiency, light bulb [s] ... that I can actually dim" that we currently use. (Another example not previously mentioned in this news group was replacing the INSTEON-controlled MR16 halogen in my bed reading lamp with an MR-16 LED.)

... Marc Marc_F_Hult

Yes, I would guess voltage to be faily low also, but bulb glass is much thinner and non leaded as in a CRT. I was just thinking of back in the late

60s, early 70s (yeah, I'm a geezer, not a geek) when government mandated more shielding around high voltage rectifier and damper cage in TVs because of X-rays out the bottom of the set. I think this applied to B&W sets also. Perhaps I have been living too long in the "progressive" world of Chicken Little and the Sky is Falling. ;-)

I remember the rule of thumb, in my own mind, 1 kV per inch of tube, aprox. The 12" sets only ran about 10-15kV and the X-radiation didn't really start until higher levels were used.

snipped-for-privacy@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@nntp.fuse.net:

The TVs get the same line voltage that these bulbs get. Also, high voltage supplies can be made quite tiny if the current is low and if the environment suppresses arcing.

While I agree that these bulbs are likely to be safe, I think that the issue bears scrutiny. Trust, but verify!

FALSE

TRUE

I suspect that there is a confusion of terms. I have seen "dimmable" CFLs and LEDs that dim "smothly" for a little range and then suddenly turn off. I would not consider that a smoothly dimming bulb.

Well, it's been nearly 50 years since I learned about CRTs but, as I dimly recall, higher voltages are required for higher delection of the beam so the bigger the CRT the higher the voltage. Few B&W TVs had large screens so they had lower voltages. Since these folks are not deflecting a beam, the voltage is likely to be much less. And, even if they were deflecting a beam, the "screen" size is much, much smaller than a TV.

I asked Vu1 about the internal voltage and whether the bulbs emit x-rays and got the following (non)response.

"Detail specifications will be made available after independent and UL lab testing have completed. Please refer to our website and blog site for current updates."

I do not know whether UL will test for x-rays.

Ian Shef wrote:

I doubt voltage of the electron emitter beam has anything to do with deflection but rather the amount of energy to light up the increased area of a larger screen in the same amount of time. The voltage on the deflection plates may need to be higher to change the angle amount.

I would conclude to get 50, 100 or even 200W of light a fair bit of energy would be required and therefore a large voltage, also. What was the enrgy of light output from the ole' CRT screen. I always had about 300W, in mind, for a larger TV set. but only based on rough hearsay from TV guys.

Where did you get "voltage of the electron emitter beam"? Heating the cathode of the electron gun causes it to emit electrons which are then focused into a beam, accelerated and guided by other electrodes. The amount of delection depends on the voltage on the deflection plates. Only an area the (unchanging) diameter of the very thin beam "lights up" as the beam traverses the screen. It's the kinetic energy of the beam which causes this

- not an electrical interaction.

http://electr>I doubt voltage of the electron emitter beam has anything to do with

Like I said, it's been nearly 50 years since I learned about CRTs. In those days electrostatic deflection was prevalent.

This page gives an explanation of the x-rays and of the high voltage. I still am pretty sure that these new bulbs will not have such high voltages nor emit x-rays.

Charles Sullivan wrote:

This is getting interesting. Today's NYT has an article on a new 60W equivalent LED bulb from Philips that has the same color as a 60W incandescent. It doesn't say anything about heat, power factor or compatibility with existing dimmers and, while it has no specific cost numbers, indicates it _might_ eventually sell for $20-25. (That may be wishful thinking.)

I especially liked this paragraph about the Energy Department...

"At first, the department set no standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and inferior products flooded the market. Consumers rebelled against the bulbs? shortcomings: the light output from compact fluorescent bulbs was cold and unpleasant, their life was much shorter than claimed, many were large and undimmable, they would not work in cold environments and they contained polluting mercury."

They didn't note that many of the CFLs also put out about half as much light as claimed, even when new. But, otherwise, they made most of the po>Like I said, it's been nearly 50 years since I learned about CRTs. In those

ROTFL: But the article does say that " We test LED bulbs today that they're equivalent to 40 watts but are really like 20 watt bulbs". New product same story.

Fox-like, Dave continues to purposely distort and selectively report in order to support his misguided claim that CFL's were a "bad idea" and that nothing had changed in 10 years.

In fact, many issues with early CFLs were largely the same as with _all_ fluorescent lamps and have largely been resolved. The early exaggerated claims for CFL output are now paralleled by exaggerated claims for LEDs. This is the nature of an unregulated marketplace that has next to nothing to do intrinsically with CFLs ( or LEDs or widgets).

No. Most importantly, Dave said that CFLs were a "bad idea" and that nothing had changed in 10 years and maligned the very folks working to test, and regulate and refine CFLs into the better product that they evolved into.

What the NY Times article does state is that "the department considers the INTRODUCTION [emphasis added] of compact fluorescents, today's alternative to standard bulbs, to have been in a debacle. At first, the department set no standards for compact fluorescent bulbs and inferior products flooded the market."

In my experience, it is human nature for the first of otherwise comparable changes to encounter more resistance than subsequent, similar changes. The introduction of LEDs -- and all of _its_ problems -- will have an easier time of it because CFLs -- and regular fluorescents before CFLs -- paved the way.

And FACT is that all reduction in energy use and CO2 emissions and reduced mercury pollution that has occurred in the last 15 years because of the use of CFLs would not have occurred is we were still waiting for the perfect alternative. All it takes is a trip or two outside the US to see the enormous popularity of CFLs around the world and the great benefits that they provide. Those are all actual benefits that actually would have been lost if the naysayers and hyper-critics had prevailed.

... Marc _F_Hult