Fireflies Bring Us Brighter LEDs 111
Zothecula writes "Fireflies have helped an international team of scientists get over 50 percent more light out of existing LED bulbs. It was discovered that in the Photuris genus of firefly, scales in the insect's exoskeleton possess optical qualities that boost the amount of bioluminescence that can shine through. Those same qualities were found to dramatically increase the light output of an LED bulb."
Re: (Score:3)
direct link (Score:5, Informative)
The linked article is just a paraphrase of this press release [osa.org], which has more details.
Re:direct link (Score:5, Informative)
The paper itself has even more details, and is publicly accessible: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-21-S1-A179
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the headline is a lie. The scientists did NOT get more light than current LED's. Current LED's already have surface treatments. What they did was demonstrate that this firefly has its own surface treatment for the same effect. So, no--this is not going to spur advances in LED design any more than its wings will inspire new advances in commercial flight.
HID's (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Bowhunting skills - check
Computer hacking skills - check
Time to do it? Nope. I have a date tonight.
Re: (Score:3)
Nunchuck skills - check
Bowhunting skills - check
Computer hacking skills - check
Time to do it? Nope. I have a date tonight.
Sorry, but that last one puts all three of the previous items in doubt.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mellowing it down: the bulbs themselves are not that obnoxious, just when used with a conventional reflector. They are more bright so they require a more precise reflector to keep that light out of the eyes of the other road users.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a kind of bias we humans favor. Wouldn't it be better if we enhanced our night vision, instead of using brighter headlights and street lights? Or, don't drive at night, rather than try to banish darkness?
Better to cure allergies to cats, rather than breed hypoallergenic cats? Cure allergies to cedar trees, rather than chop them all down? Go to bed when the sun sets, instead of using artificial lighting?
But no. Our society is sacred. The world must change to suit us, not the other way around
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Show us a genetic or technological modification to give a human extreme night vision, without compromising quality of vision, or vision in bright light - at a cost lower than that which a human in a developed country pays for replacement headlamps / street light taxes in a year and POSSIBLY we could talk about altering humanity wholesale.
Until the ability to modify ourselves matches your dream, at a cost low enough to avoid stratifying humanity into haves and have-nots I think most of us will be content to
Re: (Score:2)
But what is the real cost of our profligate use of artificial lighting? The cost in energy is not much per fixture, but we have so many that it is a significant portion of our energy usage. It screws up our circadian rhythms, at considerable costs in additional health problems. It also kills millions of insects which have evolved to orient on moonlight in order to fly straight so they can spread out. Instead, these insects now fly in circles around our lights until they are gobbled up by predators or dr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Like those mermaids. I saw it on Animal Planet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:HID's (Score:5, Interesting)
So thanks to fireflies I can have even brighter, more obnoxious headlights on my car.
HIDs =/= LEDs.
But yes, expect more insanely bright and poorly adjusted headlights on cars.
I always thought that for most driving, done in urban areas, headlights were so the car could be seen, not to see with. That's what street lamps are for.
Once away from street lamps (and oncoming traffic), then lights can and should be as bright as possible IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
That *used* to be the case, but between Liberals campaigning to stop "light pollution" and Consevatives campaigning to cut municipal and state budgets we're turning on less existing roadway lights (often only every third lamp or so) and installing fewer lights when we build new roads.
I suspect in the latter case you're referring to Colorado Springs, Colo. As a liberal who believes that reducing light pollution is a worthy endeavor, I'm glad my very conservative city took this step. It Just Makes Sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Some lux cars now have adaptive brightness headlights which sense ambient and oncoming lighting and adjust brightness to appropriate levels.
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody have more details? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I understand what was discovered in TFA (and press release noted by Trepidity), the etched scales reduce the internal reflections of the produced light which result in some of the produced light being lost in the structure of the LED and lens.
Does anybody know how much light is actually lost within the LED and lens? The article mentions that the extrated light is increased by 55% which implies that at least a third of the light produced by an LED is lost within the structure - would this be correct?
I would presume that this loss would be influenced by the shape of the LED lens - correct? I seem to remember that pin through hole LEDs are designed with the emitter at the focus of the curved lens to minimize reflected losses BUT this could be a huge advantage for SMT chip LEDs which tyically just have a flat surface for the lens.
Are there other applications in which this can be used as I would think that this could be useful in other applications? I would guess that adding the triangular "roof" structure would make it difficult to focus/direct the light produced by the LED. This would mean that the typical power dispersion patter of a typical LED would be evened out and the light output would be difficult to focus - correct?
myke
Re:Anybody have more details? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's basically a misleading headline.
Sort of like an advertising campaign a few years back, which compared a mouthwash to 'brushing alone' - which when you went into the small print was comparing it against brushing with no toothpaste.
The picture shows a bare die LED.
LEDs are basically never used like this, they always have a silicone or epoxy cover, which better matches the refractive index of the led die, so more light gets out.
Is this useful in some cases, perhaps, and may inspire some modifications. But the flat figure is misleading,
50% of light is _not_ lost at the moment in most designs of led.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the article is lacking, but not necessarily wrong.
Perhaps the idea is something along the lines of a Fresnel lense--individual surfaces that act to direct light that normally emits from the sides of the LED and direct it more towards the end where it is concentrated for purpose in use. I can easily see 55% of the light emitted by an LED being wasted if it is going in a direction that is not of benefit to the purpose of the device. If you'll look at an LED flashlight, the LED itself protrudes up into
Re: (Score:2)
That is very hard to believe, do you really think that with millions spent researching LEDs no one has tried different lens combinations, magnifiers, reflectors, and fresnels? Also, if 50% of the light was being absorbed by the LED wouldn't it get so hot it would melt itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
LEDs are basically never used like this, they always have a silicone or epoxy cover, which better matches the refractive index of the led die, so more light gets out.
I've worked with some high power LEDs that have no or minimal covering over the die. Even with a large cover, if it had a matching index of refraction, you would still have the same internal reflection issues at the boundary between the air and cover, instead of between the die and air. Just now, every internal bounce will have even more material to go through.
Re:Anybody have more details? (Score:4, Informative)
Difficult to focus would actually be an advantage for most LED lighting applications (as opposed to LED lasers) since one of the biggest disadvantages of LED's versus other bulb sources is that they are too unidirectional and so dump a large amount of light into a small area and so they create a relatively large lux value without necessarily creating a high lumen value.
Re: (Score:1)
That's because nature forgot to patent her inventions.
Re: (Score:3)
Korean anti-reflective LED lens (Score:4, Informative)
About two months ago Koreans published a similar success plus they found out the surface trick also worked as a good anti-reflective coating:
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-fireflies-korean-team-bright-idea.html
More linkspam (Score:4, Insightful)
Click through the links until you find the original abstract.
The paper is about their experiments to understand the emittance of firefly scales. The conclusion is that the scales improve emittance by 55% when replicated on a cheap LED they were using as a test source.
They had no plans on using this for any practical purpose, which isn't surprising given that many optical devices already use this technique, and have for years. You can buy laser-etching solar cell surfacers off the 'web. Google it yourself.
This is simply another excellent example of a team misleading their university's press department by releasing link spammy titles, followed by the press team failing to do their job and apply any due diligence, followed by the blogrolling that occurs when a self-described TV producer reads the same link spam and fails utterly in their duty as well. /. copied it from Giz, who copied it from the press release, and no one bothered to actually look at the paper in question.
Nothing to see here folks, move along
Heinlein "predicted" this (Score:3)
In 1940, Robert A. Heinlein (writing under the pseudonym of Lyle Monroe) published a story called "Let There Be Light" where the firefly's bioluminosity whas studied leading to the development of "light panels", kinda-sorta predicting LEDs. It's a nice development that now the firefly is being studied to improve those LEDs. Though the mechanism is totally different of course.
The story is apparently in the public domain now, available here [archive.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully I have a 10 year old car with a dimmable dashboard with filament bulbs.
"Existing" bulbs (Score:1)
This is far easier than getting 50 percent more light out of LED bulbs that don't exist.
My Towers Power Light (Score:2)
Is already blinding enough. I really do not know what the designers were thinking, putting an LED equivalent of a 60 watt bulb for the power indicator. You could read my the light of the stupid thing.
Fireflies Bring Us Brighter LEDs (Score:3)
Fireflies Bring Us Brighter LEDs
A band of ingenious fireflies, in a fit of magnanimity, decided to bestow upon us mere mortals the gift of their superior LED technology. Down they flew from their mountaintop aerie, each carrying a pair of Super-Ultra-Bright (tm) Firefly-made LEDs in their little firefly feet, and upon reaching Belgium, they lightly dropped them into the hands of grateful research scientists.
Existing Bulbs (Score:2)
They must have Leonardo's Workshop built.
http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Leonardo's_Workshop [wikia.com]
'scales' (Score:1)
How many Fireflies does it take (Score:2)
How many Fireflies does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Two.
The trick is getting them into the light bulb.
Wow Sorry! (Score:2)
Transparent enough (Score:1)
Re:intelligent design? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod as flamebait
No, if it was intelligent design, all fireflies would have this. Since it appears only one strain of fireflies does this, it points to evolution.
Re:intelligent design? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Now that the fireflies are popular, they will cease to exist as they will surely be axed by Fox."
The religious Right cannot endorse something that comes from Luciferin. Lighting your home with that and you'll go straight to Hell.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:intelligent design? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, YOU think you know what the alleged designer had in mind
No, really it's just Occam's razor. When you can explain observed facts with a simple, elegant, proved-to-death process like evolution through natural selection, bringing an omnipotent designer into the picture to explain away facts is overkill. Might as well claim the Teapot summoned the designer in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Evolution is hardly simple compared to (to use the popular atheist pejorative) "goddidit".
Fortunately, Occam's Razor doesn't, and never did, say the slightest thing about what is true, rather only what is pragmatic for use when presented with otherwise-equivalent models.
Re:intelligent design? (Score:5, Interesting)
Evolution is hardly simple compared to (to use the popular atheist pejorative) "goddidit".
"Goddidit" in isolation is simple. But then accounting for all the mental hoops one needs to take to create a semi-reasonable model with an omnipotent creator being, it becomes progressively more complex.
Fortunately, Occam's Razor doesn't, and never did, say the slightest thing about what is true, rather only what is pragmatic for use when presented with otherwise-equivalent models.
Of course. When presented with a choice between "this simple process did it", "an unseen creator did it, then put a lot of hints to the contrary in the ground" and more intricate theories like "the Teapot made the creator do that", it's pragmatic to choose the first one. I'm willing to change my mind when evidence that disproves evolution or evidence for intelligent creator or evidence for Teapot surfaces.
Re: (Score:1)
Today the evidence for Jesus can be seen in people. In lives changed from being ruined to being fixed, in people serving meals at soup kitchens, in caring for others and in answered prayers of Christians.
(The Bible says that the world was made through Jesus hence intelligent creator.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't be selective with the data, and simply through away the data points you don't like. Well, you can, as you've clearly lost all your critical thinking skills.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if that were the case, the Atheism would be guilty of all the crimes committed by atheists in the name of atheism ... right?
Because no true atheist would kill is the reply I usually get, which is the same response you'll get from BenJaminus, right?
The question is, are the millions killed by atheists (USSR, PRoC, etc) outliers as much as Raping priests and the WBC are to Xians.
And for the record, I am not Xian.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the sub-text behind my previous post was that "the evidence for Jesus can be seen in" non
Re: (Score:2)
The states mentioned did things to religious people, often on trumped up charges or actual violation of state laws against certain religious activities. IT doesn't mean it wasn't sanctioned or didn't happen. Point of fact, Falun Gong of China are highly persecuted today, just because the nature of the religion is anti totalitarian state. Persecuted for religion ... not exactly, but actual in practice .. yes .
A = B
B= C
You can't be for A and against C.
Re: (Score:2)
(The Bible says that the world was made through Jesus hence intelligent creator.)
uh ... no it doesn't. Jesus was the (according to Christianity anyway) savior of mankind. God was the creator of everything. Although, granted all three (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) are "God", and simply make up different aspects of the Trinity as a "whole".
Re:intelligent design? (Score:4, Informative)
And that's if you conceniently forget that Jewish religion was previously polytheistic, and Yhwh was just but one of several annoying traits personified. In his case, war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:intelligent design? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're seriously trying to use "science" and "evidence" to explain your faith?
There is no stronger principle in science than evolution. Because of anti-science fanatics like you, it has more support, evidence, and understanding than any single field of physical science known to man. Do you understand that? The computer you're using has less evidence for it working than evolution. Gravity is absurd compared to the depth of evidence of evolution.
If our understanding of basic science depended on it, you would sooner float off the planet than evolution would cease to be.
I'm glad you're religious if it works for you and your family. Just stay out of politics and science and you'll be fine. The moment you touch that, you become an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
God created evolution.
There, you can now both be right!
Re:intelligent design? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no evidence Jesus existed, and you you study the time when the bible was put together, the letters strongly indicate that 'Jesus' is a compilation of people. FYI: at the time people claiming to be Prophets and the son of god was common.
". In lives changed from being ruined to being fixed, "
personal bias.
", in people serving meals at soup kitchens"
Gee, all kindness comes from the religion you happen to believe, what an amazing coincidence.
The fact that similar things have been going on far longer the the belief in God proves you are wrong.
" answered prayers of Christians."
Yeah, that doesn't happen. Provably does not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Today the evidence for Jesus can be seen in people. In lives changed from being ruined to being fixed, in people serving meals at soup kitchens, in caring for others and in answered prayers of Christians.
That's not got much to do with Jesus from what I see. That's people doing things.
Where's Jesus during the rampant abductions, murders and rapes that are going on every day?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And god is simple? The cognitive capacity alone needed to create the reality we're in and to listen to all those prayers, to monitor and judge all those lives, I wouldn't call that simple at all.
Evolution, at its core, is simple: individuals reproduce in some way, there are traits that individuals inherit from their parent(s), (some of) those traits have an influence on an individual's reproduction succes. That is enough to make (natural) selection inevitable. Mechanisms for recombining traits produce indiv
Re: (Score:2)
What assumptions and additional actors does evolution add? In what universe are they not simple compared with "First we need to have an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being"?
Not Occam's razor, but as Laplace said: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
While there's merit in these investigative tools, they have limits. Being aware of such limits doesn't make me an idiot, as implied earlier. Indeed, the "religion of science" crowd is just as likely to show intolerance of other opinions as any other certified jihadist when it comes to keepin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that ';logic' is why there can be no debate with you people. You use bad logic, logical fallacies and refuse to hold your view to the same tests as you want evolutionary scientist to have.
There is no evidence of any designer; however creations talk about top down.
You create an absurd argument instead of offer evidence.
Science works. Changing the argument instead of showing proof just shows that you belief is factually wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Science is a method, and the conclusions continue to change over time. And I suppose once everything is "proved", as you envision it, science itself
Re: (Score:1)
"No, if it was intelligent design, all fireflies would have this."
What?
Similarly, if cars were designed, they'd all have 8-cylinder engines?
Re: (Score:1)
likewise, cars were created by an intelligent designer, AND also evolved.
not really sure why the 2 need to be mutually exclusive when talking about the more general topic of 'everything' , but they don't need to be mutually exclusive when talking about something specific such as cars?
Yes, God created everything. yes, things evolve. christians cannot (and smart ones, do not) ignore science. Christianity and Science can easily live together, they don't, and never have been contradictory. Thats why arguments a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If cars were designed by an all knowing, all powerful, god then no I wouldn't expect them to all have 8-cylinder engines. I would expect them all to use the optimal design for the niche they are in. If there was a component that was better than some other component in every way then yes I would expect the better component to always be used.
Of course the beauty of intelligent design is that nothing can ever run counter to it and hence it can never be shown false (it also doesn't provide any useful predictio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Evolution is a bush, not a tree or straight line. It's also slow. IF brightness helps mating, then eventually all fireflies in that area will get them...UNLESS it also makes them easier to be food.
I don't know if with of those are true, just pointing out the two most obvious variables.
And evolution is ongoing, so in 200 years maybe all fireflies will have them.
Re: (Score:1)
Intelligent design and evolution are made to explain completely separate things.
Evolution only explains the diversity and change in populations but does not explain where it started. Evolution assumes some sort of starting point.
Intelligent design and creationism on the other hand tries to explain the starting point.
You could have intelligent design start life and
Re: (Score:2)
luminescent design
Re: (Score:2)
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Photuris genus of firefly is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist