Optical Coatings Separate Light from Heat: Return of Incandescent Light Bulbs (Axil Axil)

The following post was submitted by Axil Axil

Regarding the story as follows:


Return of incandescent light bulbs as MIT makes them more efficient than LEDs

Nanoplasmonics can now produce coatings that can selectively certain frequencies of light and allow others through a substrate that has been coated with a selectively reflective surface. This is great news for LENR reactors.

Rossi can now coat his wafers to allow only visible light out of the steel and keep the heat in. Or Rossi can keep all light in both visible and infrared and only let electrons out.

Rossi could also convert the infrared light into visible light.

Once the Rossi X-Cat is released to the market, expect rapid advance of technology that might leave Rossi in the dust with an obsolete product after a market run of just a month or two.

If you want to get a head start on your own LENR produce development along these lines see as follows:

Heat Control and Lighting Systems Design: Optical Coatings Separate Light from Heat http://www.photonics.com/EDU/Handbook.aspx?AID=32514

Axil Axil

  • Jonnyb

    It can take many years to get a working prototype to the market, E-Cat is kind of testament to this. I think whoever is first or even second will have a while to exploit their product. If the Patents do their job it will buy even more time. 3 to 5 years should be possible, enough time to establish yourself?

  • bkrharold

    Rossi is in the best possible position to test the new optical coatings on an X-cat. With his quick mind and creativity, he will surely have a leg up against his competitors.

  • Obvious

    I read this patent a while back, regarding this technology.

  • bfast

    “Once the Rossi X-Cat is released to the market, expect rapid advance of technology that might leave Rossi in the dust with an obsolete product after a market run of just a month or two.”
    I think you are partly right, but fundamentally wrong with this conjecture.

    Very soon after the X-Cat is released, and denial is no longer possible, there will be a flood of engineers and scientists focusing on LENR-based technology. The flood of advancement will be enormous. That said, I think it’ll take 6 months for this flood to begin to ramp up. Denial of LENR is deep, people will not buy in over night.

    As to leaving Rossi and the X-Cat in the dust, well, I think this is highly unlikely. 95% of the new LENR technology force will be working on implementing the X-Cat in various environments. In doing so, they will very quickly establish the form and fit of the X-Cat into their technologies making it very difficult to remove.

    The remaining 5% will mostly be spent trying to understand the science behind the X-Cat, and making an improved X-Cat. Very little will be spent trying to make a “this doesn’t work like an X-Cat, but it does even better.” When somebody does come out with an improved X-Cat, he will be able to patent the improvement. However, as long as the base technology in the X-Cat is still there (this is the common nature of improvement), Rossi will still be entitled to his royalty. More sensibly, the one making the improvement will come to Rossi so that Rossi can license his technology and incorporate it into the X-Cat 2.

    I contend, therefore, that Rossi is under virtually no threat of being swept away in LENR glee.

  • LilyLover

    The “coating” is analogous to increased resistance. Besides the lifespan issue, the product is MIT by-product.
    Dr. Rossi already seems to be able to control the heat / light output, I believe perhaps more effectively.
    Also, radiated heat saves heating costs to some degree, so, it could be a discounted benefit, at least when the heat is a desired output.
    Nice for MIT kids, but let’s see where this goes.

  • LilyLover

    True, except Hydrogen car. When all the infrastructure goes that way, cost becomes immaterial and huge chunk of the rest of the economy get modified.
    Although costly, it’s not a zero sum game, neither stupidity.

  • Job001

    Unmitigated hype.

    LED’s at 100 lumens/watt and 50,000 hr life have an order of magnitude cost advantage over incandescent. Increasing the cost and complexity of incandescent to get to 40% efficient is questionable. LED technology can reach a theoretical efficiency of 400 lumens/watt or more with a very rapid learning or improvement curve.
    For instance, Phillips has a new LED at 200 lumens/watt in the lab, 100% better than current market LED’s. Meanwhile, the traditional incandescent starts at about 10 lumens/watt, and a very short 2% of LED life.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      I have never used CF bulbs due to the short life and slow start-up, but do have a few LEDs scattered around the house, especially in outside lights that are a pain to replace bulbs in. I still have incandescents rather than LEDs in most living rooms, as (a) the light is still not as pleasant as filament bulbs (even ‘warm white’) and (b) I have a lot of glass ‘shades’ and lanterns that need the nearly all-round light emission that LEDs lack.

      The shortish life of incandescents is definitely a problem (that’s why I have a large stack of them in my loft) but efficiency isn’t a concern for me as the ‘waste’ heat means that my boiler works that much less for more than half the year. However as LED bulbs continue to improve I would be surprised if any new incandescent technology will ever be able to compete – even backward looking old farts like me won’t provide a large enough market to make them viable.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        “I have never used CF bulbs due to the short life and slow start-up..”

        Might unfortunately be true also when CF=cold fusion, lol. Rossi might disagree though, except he’s now busy mending his X which went unstable.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          Mmn – a broken ‘compact fluorescent’ bulb just makes a mess on the carpet and poisons your family and pets, but a faulty cold fusion boiler might be slightly more problematic. Hopefully all potential problems are being ‘sorted’ right now.

          Shame about the e-cat X.

        • Axil Axil

          I believe that the cause of LENR is a special type of hydrogen compound(lithium-hydrogen) crystal. The production of this special crystal is hard to control. When too many of these nano things are produced the LENR reactor becomes very sensitive to stimulus and likely to go supercritical if not dampened.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            By lithium-hydrogen crystal, do you mean some kind of hitherto unknown sister substance of LiH? Do you believe this substance’s melting point is more than E-cat’s working temperature (whatever it is)? LiH melting point is 692C.

            • Axil Axil

              There is a crystal structure based on the hexagonal based graphite format that is imperious to supernova levels of heat and pressure. Metalized hydrogen is one such crystal. Other is based on hydrogen and helium, a third is based on hydrogen and oxygen(the water crystal-LeClair).

              What underpins the strong force
              (the color force) is monopole magnetism in a superconductive context. Certain
              hard to produce chemical base crystal arrangements can produce this
              superconductive monopole magnetism. This class of chemicals in a nanoparticle
              format can disrupt the strong force and the particles that depend on that force.

              It has become apparent to me now, that the sun is powered by a cold fusion reaction based on metalized hydrogen. This compound is one of the special compounds that support LENR. The structure of this material makes it indestructible via monopole magnetism and forms the basis for the internal heat production in the sun but also in the gas planets including jupiter, saturn and uranus. The Safire simulation of the sun produces megawatt level energy using this metalized hydrogen which generates helium 3 as a byproduct.

              • Pekka Janhunen

                Can this model explain the observed solar neutrino flux?

                • Axil Axil

                  The cold fusion reaction is different that the hot fusion reaction in that tritium is not produced as per DD fusion.

                • Axil Axil

                  “An early experiment consisted of a huge tank of perchloroethylene buried deep in the earth (the solar neutrino telescope). The neutrinos detected were only about a third of those expected from the best models of the Sun’s interior. Since we have accurate measurements of the amount of energy released by the Sun, a factor of three change in the rate of the main production reactions is hard to explain. More recent experiments at Super Kamiokande, the SAGE and GALLEX detectors, and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory all get about half the expected neutrino flux, so the neutrino deficiency persists.”

                  Cold fusion occurs everywhere in the son not just its core. The photosphere is a plase where cold fusion can substantially increase the energy production in the sun a increase the temperature from 6,000K to 2,000,000 K.

        • Omega Z

          The X-cat has returned to stable status.

      • US_Citizen71

        For those who like the warm glow of incadescent bulbs might I suggest: http://www.philips.co.uk/c-p/8718696481264/led-bulb

        I have one that I use as my before bedtime light, I turn it and dim it about an hour or so before bedtime as my only lighting. It has a really nice warm glow.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          Interesting – I might ‘trial’ one. Hefty price tag though, if you fill the house with them.

          • US_Citizen71

            The price might be lower than what the link shows I paid about $8 US for mine at a home improvement store.

      • Omega Z

        Sadly, nothing compares to incandescent.

        I read a couple years ago that with continued R&D, it may be possible to develop incandescence that are more efficient then LED’s.

        Which leads to 3 questions.
        Will they still be the incandescent light we are accustomed to?
        What is the expected life cycle?
        What will they cost?
        Ahhhg, Give me an E-cat X and will just go retro. Efficiency won’t matter. 🙂

        • Zephir

          During summer, I don’t need the electric lighting very much.

          But in other months I do also utilize the electric heating – after then the high efficiency of CFLs/LEDs brings no advantage for me: I still utilize the resistance losses for heating. The energy saved with CFLs gets wasted for heating of my home with another appliances. I just contribute for faster depletion of world reserves of indium, gallium and rare earth elements.

          The cold fusion can replace the lost of energy, but it cannot replace the irrecoverable loss of strategic materials.

          • Omega Z

            I agree,

            If you use electric heat, then during the heating season, incandescent bulbs are quite efficient as the heat is not wasted..

    • Albert D. Kallal

      The MIT announcement does NOT YET claim they are NOW more efficient. They claim the “potential” exists.

      And I much agree that LED’s are going to win the race for the bulb of choice.

      LED’s are hard to beat, and their cost continues to lower. They are already overtaking CFL’s (and much agree with others here stating that mercury etc. tends to suggest CFL’s are a VERY BAD idea).

      And if we surmise past statements from Rossi, the energy output of LENR devices is “already” in the form of light. All you have to do is let that light hit the walls of the reactor, or your room to convert such light energy into heat (so I grasping at straws as to how this
      technology helps LENR?)?

      Since the desired output from LENR is heat, then attempting to “contain” the heat and convert it to light as this MIT technology does is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE GOAL for LENR!

      So while the technology could re-invigorate incandescent bulbs, it is a long way off at this point in time. And with LENR the goal is NOT to convert heat into light (as the MIT technology essentially does), but as stated the exact opposite outcome!

      The LENR goal of converting light into heat is not any kind of technical challenge any more so then letting the sun shine on your face when you walk outside!

      Of course how Rossi is producing electricity remains a mystery, and I still hold out that Rossi may be using “semantics” when he says the electricity is not produced via the SeeBeck effect. There is no efficient means we have at our disposal to convert heat into electricity at this point in time.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Zephir

      Yes, but the indium and gallium faces shortage in just few years.


      Also the epoch of rapid progress in LED development already passed: the existing progress is much slower.


      • Job001

        The Lm/W chart tops out at 250 while the market cheap LED’s are 100 Lm/W and research is above 250 Lm/W, and existing design theoretic is above 400 Lm/W. Consequently, the case for material shortage maybe weak on that score and also due to the unmitigated impact of LENR upon rare earth waste extraction.
        Additionally, the use of rare earth metals is not necessarily a given as wavelength filters and plasm-ionic advances occur.
        +1, I like your cool charts Zephyr!

  • Zephir

    It’s sorta pity, this technology hasn’t been invented before few decades, because it’s actually quite simple. LED have their advantages: they can for example transmit data and they have much longer lifetime. But they also have their disadvantages: they do require expensive and complex circuit for their powering, which are spreading EM noise into outside. And they do require expensive materials (indium, rare earth elements), which face shortage. I can also see few problems with photonic mirror, which will lose its efficiency due to deposits of tungsten evaporated from filament. But the photonic mirror could be integrated with halogen cycle, which would also remove the problem with deposition of metal from filament.

    • bfast

      “But they also have their disadvantages: they do require expensive and complex circuit for their powering”
      Um, not structurally. LEDs run on DC voltage, and our homes are wired AC. This is the sole reason for the complex circuitry. If future homes are developed with an internal 12V grid, this whole issue will be mute.

      • Zephir

        Yes, if we would be honest people, then the socialism would represent a great structural advantage for human civilization. But we aren’t and our homes still run at AC.

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

        Many kitchens already have 12V circuits to power cabinet lights and/or spotlights. With the advent of virtually lossless ‘switching’ AC/DC converters it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine that other rooms will increasingly be fitted with local DC circuits for light fittings and perhaps also for solid state devices, chargers etc. It would certainly be nice to say adios to the ranks of black ‘adaptors’ hanging out of all the mains outlets.

        • US_Citizen71

          You can buy outlets with USB charge plugs built in them now. I have installed several in my home. No more wall warts for me!


          • Omega Z

            Yeah, they just moved the wall warts to the back side out of sight. 🙂

            • Zephir

              Yep, this is a typical attitude of US_Citizens:

              “If the electric cars don’t pollute my city, it just means, they’re environmentally clean”.

              But what the electric cars actually doing is just the moving the pollution out of sight of their customers.