Re: Wide-band non-incandescent purely-IRC device

GreenXenon wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I’m thinking of a wide-band non-incandescent purely-IRC device. By
> “purely-IRC”, I mean it should have the least [hopefully none] of the
> effects of microwave and millimeter radiation and IR-B [medium
> infrared] radiation.
[snip crap]

1) You have amply demonstrated that you cannot "think" of change
for a dollar.
2) IR LED.
3) idiot

> filling up your bathtub with
> all that nasty stinky kakaa!

OK - snipped most of crap.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

GreenXenon wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 9:13 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > 2) IR LED.
>
> As said before, LEDs are not as efficient as fluorescent lamps. LEDs
> also don’t last long, nor can they withstand the intensity of light
> required for broiling, crap-carbonizing, or basking without being
> damaged by their own heat.

IR LEDs show typical 85% conversion of electrical power to optical
power.

idiot

Christ you are ****ing stoooopid. ****ing ignorant, too. Look up the
numbers - or have a Head Start dropout look them up for you. Do you
speak idiot? Of course you do.

> LEDs are meant for emitting low-intensity light. In addition, LEDs
> provide less lumens-per-watt than flourescent lamps.

Hey ****ing stooopid, a kilowatt or ten of LEDs pump neodymium glass
lasers.

<http://www.innolume.com/_pdfs/laserchips/LD-1320-UM-3W.pdf>
3W, 1320 nm

Hey ****ing stooopid - a high power T-1 3/4 940 nm IR LED will set you
back $0.70. 500 mW/sr

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

In <c45da061-510a-46ef-85c0-(E-Mail Removed)>,
GreenXenon wrote:

>On Feb 18, 4:30 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>> GreenXenon wrote:
>> > On Feb 18, 9:13 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> 2) IR LED.
>>
>> > As said before, LEDs are not as efficient as fluorescent lamps.
>>
>> Wrong at this point in time.
>>
>> LEDs
>>
>> > also don=92t last long,
>>
>> Wrong for a long time.
>>
>> nor can they withstand the intensity of light
>>
>> > required for broiling, crap-carbonizing, or basking without being
>> > damaged by their own heat.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> > LEDs are meant for emitting low-intensity light.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> In addition, LEDs
>>
>> > provide less lumens-per-watt than flourescent lamps.
>>
>> See above.
>
>http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_lighting.html
>
>T8 fluorescent lamp has 85 to 95 lumens/watt. LEDs only have 15-19
>lumens/watt

LEDs have since improved, though only the most efficient top few
available on the market get past 85-95 lumens/watt. Just a year ago, LEDs
achieving 40-45 lumens/watt had significant use in not-all-that-expensive
flashlights and bicycle lights.

You ought to occaisionally check out:

http://members.misty.com/don/led.html or the press release sections of
the websites of Cree, Lumileds and Nichia.

Not that LEDs have been both fairly efficient and gaining efficiency at
a noticeable rate in recent years at wavelengths longer than 650 nm or so.

(With some newsgroup trimming)

- Don Klipstein ((E-Mail Removed))

In <2e78e8e0-b8a6-4012-9ecb-(E-Mail Removed)>,
GreenXenon wrote:

>On Feb 19, 1:12 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An IR light bulb is still the best choice.
>
>Only if it is fluorescent.

How? The "Stokes loss" is unity minus ratio of input wavelength to
output wavelength.

Efficiency is limited to ratio of input wavelength to output wavelength,
multiplied by efficiency of generating the input wavelength. Multiply
that result by quantum efficiency of the phosphor.

All the efficient fluorescent lamps I ever heard of had
phosphor-irradiating wavelength being 253.7 nm, with 184.9 nm being a
(thankfully somewhat distant) second place.

And efficiency of the exciting source is close to 2/3 for a good T8 with
a good ballast on a good day - it appears to me that much past 60% is
optimistic.

(Newsgroups trimmed)

- Don Klipstein ((E-Mail Removed))

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Uncle Al wrote:
>GreenXenon wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 18, 9:13 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 2) IR LED.
>>
>> As said before, LEDs are not as efficient as fluorescent lamps. LEDs
>> also don’t last long, nor can they withstand the intensity of light
>> required for broiling, crap-carbonizing, or basking without being
>> damaged by their own heat.
>
>IR LEDs show typical 85% conversion of electrical power to optical power.

<I snip past here>

Not that I like much to agree with "Green Xenon" where he shows need for
more education, but...

I have a problem with claim of 85% efficiency being typical of any LEDs
of any wavelength. I have yet to even hear of laboratory prototypes
achieving 85% efficiency of converting electrical power to optical power.

Can you provide a cite for 85% efficiency? Especially one naming a
manufacturer and part number?

Digi-Key (http://www.digikey.com) sells infrared LEDs and has their home
page including an entry to their search tool, which accepts part numbers.
As best as I can determine on 2/23/2009, using as best as I can
exclusion of non-stock items and multiple options of packaging of the same
part, Digi-Key stocks and offers for sale 137 different "infrared
emitters" (minus one of wavelength 660 nm) and it appears to me that all
136 of what remains are infrared LEDs.

Wavelength range of these 136 items is 730 to 950 nm, 115 of them 860 to
950 nm, as in 100% of these 136 being in or at least roughly in the
shorter wavelength 1/3 of the IR-A section of the infrared spectrum.

As for efficiency - please tell me if any of these 136 items (or the 660
nm red 137th one) so much as 30% efficiency. My experience with Digi-Key
suggests to me that a majority of these 136 infrared emitters have
datasheets linked by Digi-Key. I repeat that I find 85% efficiency to be
a "tall claim".

Should you find notable figures of output being in terms of milliwatts
per steradian, total output can be less than that if the infrared LED
produces radiation largely confined to an "area" smaller than a steradian
( 1/[4*pi] of omnidirectional coverage). An "ideal conical sharp-edged
beam" with no radiation outside it has total radiation and per-steradian
irradiance being equal to each other if the beam width is about 65.5
degrees [if I did not screw up]. Emitters with beams narrower than this
can easily have mW/sr figures exceeding actual mW.

- Don Klipstein ((E-Mail Removed))