You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Science discovery could replace light bulb
2006-12-07
NASHVILLE - A team of scientists at Vanderbilt University have been given an award from Popular Mechanics magazine for a discovery that could someday replace the common light bulb, the researchers say.

Led by Vanderbilt associate professor Sandra Rosenthal, the team nearly a year ago discovered a new way to make solid-state lights that produce white light. They say the finding could replace the common light bulb and cut the world's electricity consumption in half.

We were actually working on something else when this discovery was made," Rosenthal said. "But I think good accidents happen in science a lot more often than scientists want to admit."

The latest award from the magazine is one of several the team has won for experimenting with quantum dots tiny semiconductor crystals of cadmium selenide that absorb light and generate a charge.

Research associate James McBride, who at the time of the discover was studying the way quantum dots grow, had asked Michael Bowers repeatedly to make batches of smaller and smaller crystals.

Bowers, a graduate student in chemistry, put the nanocrystals into a small glass cell and illuminated it with a laser, expecting to see blue light. Instead he saw white.

The surprise discovery was that the tiny crystals can absorb blue light produced by light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, and emit a warm white light.

The researchers say if they can learn how to get the quantum dots to consistently produce white light more efficiently, then quantum-dot-coated LEDs could someday replace light bulbs.

The team is currently working on ways to make the LEDs brighter. Although LEDs are found in accent lighting and flashlights, they are not white enough for general, light-bulb-like use.

The team published a scientific paper on the discovery in fall 2005. Bowers is now writing a second paper that could be published next spring or summer.
Posted by:.com

#13  No blood for cadmium selenide
Posted by: kelly   2006-12-07 17:40  

#12  Vanderbilt should worry more about replacing their defense!

But they have a reputation to uphold: they don't call them the Commode Doors for nothing.
Posted by: xbalanke   2006-12-07 12:15  

#11  Legends of native Americans all speak of a heavenly light source which fires up (after suitable prayers and offerings are made) in the morning, stays on for up to 15 hours a day, requires no electricity, indeed, no source of fossil fuels to operate.

Yes, but there's a related avenue of research that maintains those "suitable prayers and offerings" must consist of human hearts ripped from living "offerings." And they have LOTS of empirical data to back this up.
Posted by: xbalanke   2006-12-07 12:13  

#10  How many scientists does it take to replace a lightbulb?
Posted by: john   2006-12-07 11:43  

#9  The acid test for LED light is whether the bands of light it produces are pleasing. This is why most people prefer incandescent to florescent lighting.

The best lighting is a bit expensive. It is an Ott light, named after the Walt Disney stop action photographer who invented it. He did a lot of research to find a natural light that was very conducive to plants and animals. Unfortunately, he put it in a light bulb that needs a special socket.

However, if you get the winter blues, it is well worth it to spend an hour a day reading a book under an Ott light.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-12-07 09:42  

#8  Vanderbilt should worry more about replacing their defense!
Posted by: badanov   2006-12-07 08:50  

#7  And so you take my carefully thought out two full paragraphs of dependent clauses, and reduce to single memorable sentence. Darn you, Bright Pebbles! ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-07 08:29  

#6   The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
Issac Asimov
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2006-12-07 07:47  

#5  Legends of native Americans all speak of a heavenly light source which fires up (after suitable prayers and offerings are made) in the morning, stays on for up to 15 hours a day, requires no electricity, indeed, no source of fossil fuels to operate. In addition to providing light to see by, this source also promotes plant growth and development. Leading authorities sniff that this is merely a legend, and if it did exist, besides not being available for hours at a time every day, would contribute to global warming.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-12-07 07:22  

#4  True, no mo euro, and then that one experiment goes cockeyed, and something unexpected appears. The steady progress of science has resulted from careful execution of experimental design -- I watched my father do that all my life. And the use of the matrix array has resulted in more quickly determining boundary conditions and robust areas where efforts ought to be concentrated. However, the great leaps happen when there is a decidedly queer result that needs decidedly creative thinking to understand. I once sat in a seminar next to the research scientist who, while searching for improved methods to prevent chemical depositions on fabric from hard water used in washing machines, came upon the technique to provide bio-available calcium in citrus juice.

The seduction of science has always been that eureka moment. The joy of science is the successful execution of a well-designed experimental sequence leading to greater understanding, but only those who have been seduced will ever get to enjoy it. Most people are not willing even to be seduced when it looks easy; why would their attitude change if it looked like hard work?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-07 07:21  

#3  "But I think good accidents happen in science a lot more often than scientists want to admit."

This is one of the great myths of the non-science public's view of how science is done, and this guy is doing good science no favor by perpetuating the myth here.

Yes, there are a few notable exceptions, but science is almost never (read, less than 1/1000th of 1% of the time) a guy with a bad haircut shrieking "eureka" in a messy room full of bunsen burners and test tubes. Science is a long, laborious, painstaking process that requires patience, diligence, deiscipline, and a high tolerance for failure and going back to the proverbial drawing board.

Any time a "scientist" promotes any other idea about the field he is doing all good scientists a disservice, and furthers an incorrect sterotype to the public. The public would have an entirely different view of science if they understood what it is really like when done properly.
Posted by: no mo uro   2006-12-07 06:13  

#2  I hope they're dimmable is all I have to say.
Posted by: gorb   2006-12-07 00:38  

#1  Half of the world's electricity goes to produce light? I would have thought to run factories or refrigerators, but then I never did grasp applied economics. Still, I'd be willing to trade out my remaining incandescent lights for something better than compact fluorescents... when someday finally arrives.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-07 00:35  

00:00