no I made a basic statement, 100% efficiency is impossible, you and someguy kept debating this fact. so I stood up for myself.
DiY LED - Cree CXA3070
- Thread starter SupraSPL
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
There are some charts around, but in fact the work has been done and posted for some of the most popular combinations. Just look around.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
publicity driven false headline, they had to put in extra energy (heat) to get to 100% but then forgot to count the heat energy
EfficientWatt
Well-Known Member
Hi @PurpleBuz,
I'd listen to @ttystikk
In very specific conditions, with extremely low wattage and temperature, I remember that in lab conditions (...) was observed that :
some tiny led took ambiant heat away from it's environment to convert more light ! So maybe the system could produce more light energy than electricty is pumped in.
Of coursed, it wouldn't be >100% efficient in relation to all sources of energy available (can't be created or destroyed blabla), but in relation to wattage/electricy pumped in, it could produce more radiant watts than electrical watts consumed, in theory ...
The future is bright my friends, really 'effing bright
I'd listen to @ttystikk
In very specific conditions, with extremely low wattage and temperature, I remember that in lab conditions (...) was observed that :
some tiny led took ambiant heat away from it's environment to convert more light ! So maybe the system could produce more light energy than electricty is pumped in.
Of coursed, it wouldn't be >100% efficient in relation to all sources of energy available (can't be created or destroyed blabla), but in relation to wattage/electricy pumped in, it could produce more radiant watts than electrical watts consumed, in theory ...
The future is bright my friends, really 'effing bright
YOU NEED TO COUNT THE HEAT ENERGY . DON'T TELL ME WHO I SHOULD LISTEN TO. YOU CANNOT BREAK BASIC LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.Hi @PurpleBuz,
I'd listen to @ttystikk
In very specific conditions, with extremely low wattage and temperature, I remember that in lab conditions (...) was observed that :
some tiny led took ambiant heat away from it's environment to convert more light ! So maybe the system could produce more light energy than electricty is pumped in.
Of coursed, it wouldn't be >100% efficient in relation to all sources of energy available (can't be created or destroyed blabla), but in relation to wattage/electricy pumped in, it could produce more radiant watts than electrical watts consumed, in theory ...
The future is bright my friends, really 'effing bright
Getgrowingson
Well-Known Member
Law's get broken all the time it's called progress
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
You said no 100% ever...well this is ever. Yes, energy was gathered from it's surrounding...but that energy was there regardless. The led could have gotten to 95-100%..no say of when that extra heat was introduced. Could have been at 100%...then taking it over to 230%. It's not like it was 101%...this is a significant increase above.
The point is...yes is can be done.
your not really that dumb are you ?
that's not 100%
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
It's not not 100%
haha try reading the comments in the article that you pointed me to.
for example:
GrandM4x
5 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2012
They are mentionning that the LED acts as a heat pump. It steals energy (heat) from the environment and therefore emits more energy than the electrical input. But not more energy than the total input.
Energy is conserved as it will always be.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html#jCp
Last edited:
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
That's a little better than haha. I read it...and know full well how it happened. Never said that wasn't going on or tried to hide it.
But what you're not getting is that it is the led that is doing to work to obtain the heat and reuse it. They are putting in "x" amount of electrical input...and getting more back in return. Led is given power...and there is more light than energy inputted(by man) into the system.
Has some figures that show more of the experiment, not just the peak of it.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403
actually I get that. I would love it if they could come up with an led that can be do this on a practical level. then we could be heading towards a 99% efficiency
But its not as simple as that If you have an led that scavenges heat that converts into light, that light eventually dissipates into heat which again is scavenged and converted into light creating an endless dissipation cycle. that unfortunately means some source of energy (electricity) is still needed to keep the light running.
Last edited:
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Just have to get the ambient to 135C ...haha
I kid.
predman
Member
I understand, but like i said, its a real pain to read trough 186 pages of stuff you barely understand yet
EfficientWatt
Well-Known Member
Huhum ...
1) You don't need to count heat energy, if that's not what we are counting ... What we are concerned about is not to prove the law of thermodynamics, but to get as much light out from electricity in.
2) No need to shout like a grounded teenager. I didn't say you could break those laws, in fact i specified energy came from elsewhere.
Yet : In regards to ELECTRICTY IN, luminous flux OUT is >100%.
I merely wanted to indicate to you there might be more to what was being suggested than what you were seeing / understanding ...
you've been repeating the same fact, telling/yelling at others they're dumb idiots, whilst it is YOU who is not understanding the subtility of what is being said ...
Didn't mean to offend you ...
But, please, take it easy man
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This is a long one. I'd start with the top three or four threads about LEDs that aren't too long.I understand, but like i said, its a real pain to read trough 186 pages of stuff you barely understand yet
predman
Member
any you recommend in particular?