Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology
Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The End of Light Bulbs?
April 13, 2006 3:25 PM
There's that famous image from 1879 of Thomas Edison, the tireless innovator, trying a hundred different combinations of materials until he got the light bulb right, and then sitting with it for 40 hours until it burned out.
Edison did not invent the incandescent bulb--Humphry Davy had a crude version in 1809--but he did make it practical and commercially successful. There have been improvements since his time--the filament is no longer carbon; the bulb contains inert gas instead of an imperfect vacuum--but the design hasn't changed much in a century.
(Thomas A. Edison--National Park Service)
Light bulbs are great--they're reliable, cheap, and bright--but they get hot, burn out, and they drink energy. Flourescent light is more efficient, but its glow isn't exactly romantic.
So for the last 13 years, a group of chemists has been at work on OLEDs--that's Organic Light-Emitting Devices--and they report in today's issue of Nature that they've made a breakthrough. They've developed a transparent, thin film that gives off bright white light when a small amount of current is run through it.
A quote from Mark Thompson, chemist at the University of Southern California: "This process will enable us to get 100 percent efficiency out of a single, broad spectrum light source." (Typically, about 75% of the potential energy in most light sources is wasted, often as heat.)
Thompson and his co-author, Stephen Forrest of the University of Michigan, are getting funding from the Energy Department and a New Jersey firm called Universal Display Corp. They have all sorts of ideas about sheets of OLEDS that could be spread over glass, so that you'd get natural-looking light from your windows at night. Theoretically, you could have a wall of light, or a curtain--or the same technology, since it can be controlled pixel-by-pixel, could be used for a very-flat-screen TV, or a computer screen that unrolls from a pen, or, perhaps, for what USC calls "the ultimate inconspicuous flat-panel television."
(Artist's conception from Universal Display Corp.)
There are still plenty of hurdles--better plastics are needed, large-scale manufacturing is still to come--but Universal Display reports it already has a practical way of making a cell-phone screen that won't drain your battery.
More HERE.
April 13, 2006 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (15)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A light bulb that hardly emits heat? This is a great idea. Who hasn’t burned their fingertips on a light bulb at one point or another? Could this technology be reversed so you could have the ultimate wide angle camera lens? Think of the picture quality! However, a full wall sized TV? Did anyone read Fahrenheit 451? 500 inch TVs don’t seem so far off now.
Posted by: M Carpenter | Apr 13, 2006 11:34:42 PM
Wow... This really would be a breakthrough if can make the jump from the labs to real-world commercial applications!
As you so eloquently point out Ned, we've had (basically) the same incandescent light bulb with us for more than 100 years. Yet, it's been only fairly recent that even solid-state, high-intensity LEDs have been making their way into mainstream applications. (Think of those new traffic lights in NYC, or the stop lamps on the back of the new high-end sports and luxuary cars)
In my lifetime, will I ever see a full-wall screen/window/TV as mentioned in Fahrenheit 451? Heck, I'd even settle for a window-sized version, which can switch from a normal view of the "outside" to a High-Def TV display and back as seen in Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall."
But for some reason, I don't think so. :-(
BTW, to answer the previous poster's questions about the "reverse"--that instead of emitting light, could it RECEIVE light, like a CCD in a digital camera.
I seem to recall that there was some research (by the same people?) underway to do just that. The idea, as I understand it, would be that you could put this light-receiving film on the OUTSIDE of a structure and the light-emitting film on the inside.
The result: a building (or a plane or a tank or a ship or a spaceship) that would be more sturdy (no "glass" that would break during an earthquake or terrorist attack, say) and energy efficient (less heat loss during winter, lower cooling in the summer), yet still allow "views" of the outside!
Now, imagine if you could produce those two kind of technologies effectively, cheaply, and REALLY efficient and flexible (like cloth)... You'd have the makings of a true "chameleon" camouflage since you can then literally "blend in" with your surroundings!
Wow... this is a "science" blog, not a "science fiction" blog so I better stop! ;-)
Posted by: redtech5 | Apr 14, 2006 9:10:13 AM
The title of today's blog is prophetic, since products which eliminate light bulbs, or forms of light bulbs, have already appeared in the marketplace. Various models of automobiles use banks of LED's in their rear lights and in interior lighting to replace incandscent bulbs; newer flashlights use sets of LED's to produce white light at a much brighter level than a standard flashlight; LCD-based flat panel computer monitors and televisions replace the cathode ray tube (or "picture tube"), which was a kind of lightbulb. OLED technology, although not in examples as dramatic as those envisioned by the Universal Display Company, is even starting to appear in some consumer products because of its increased energy efficiency over regular LED and LCD displays. For example, Kodak has a digital camera whose viewscreen is OLED-based, several of Sony's digital music players have OLED screens, and Samsung has a telephone with an OLED screen. It's just a matter of time before large panels and windows will be made of OLED's.
Posted by: chuck | Apr 14, 2006 9:47:20 AM
This OLED technology and its possible applications are amazing! I'd settle for just an alternative light source, however simple in design.
The concept of a light-emitting film to cover windows could have medical applications: treating Seasonal Affective Disorder; resetting the circadian clocks of people who work nights; even staving off jet lag.
From an aesthetic standpoint, I think I'd like to order views of . . . oh, say, Tuscan hills in one room, and ocean vistas with changeable weather conditions in another. ;-)
Redtech, your science fiction scenario of complete camouflage is downright creepy! That's one application I hope no one develops anytime soon . . . at least, not until we evolve beyond using warfare to settle our differences.
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | Apr 30, 2006 7:57:24 PM
AS I was saying (continuing the conversation from Ned's most recent post above) . . .
Chuck, your message for Ned literally made me laugh out loud. Let's hope if the culprit is a black hole or an ice floe or an enraged flock of songbirds, Ned will return with some kind of breakthrough report for us! ;-)
Redtech, you used to work with Lee Dye? No wonder I'm cowed by the depth and breadth of your knowledge! I'm cowed by yours, too, Chuck. I thrive on reading this blog but always feel completely inadequate to comment, because I have no science background whatsoever. I love science, but my approach to it is purely on a conceptual level, without any real knowledge to back it up. When a concept fires my imagination, mostly I have questions that try people's patience, or my mind wanders off into science fiction scenarios of my own. (To wit, and apropos of nothing we've been discussing, I will never stop feeling mind-boggled by wave-particle duality. It blows my mind on an existential level that a photon can be in two states simultaneously, but only when unobserved. Is it something specific to photons, or is it that photons are the only particles whose behavior we can measure without contemporaneous observation? Is it possible that other particles could be in two different states at once, but there's no equivalent of light-sensitive paper to capture their unobserved behavior? Why do photons exhibit a single behavior when they ARE observed? Is it the photon or our perception at work? If it's our perception, could whole systems of particles - say, a chunk of granite - be in alternate states simultaneously, even though we can only perceive one state? Or is this phenomenon something that can happen only on the level of particles . . . and if so, WHY? And so on. I can see how my questions are completely exasperating for someone who actually understands.)
Anyway, thanks for all the links, Redtech! The exoskeleton technology reminds me a little (here I go being simplistic again) of the giant hydraulic arms in the movie "Dave". Assuming you've ever seen the movie, is it basically the same principle?
I agree that Big Dog is freaky looking! I, too, thought more of two people (one walking backwards, both wearing tights ;-)), rather than an animal. Whatever they've used in that to help it recover its balance might actually be something that could help people like my young sister-in-law.
I have to admit that when I think of DARPA, I think of TIA, and when I think of TIA I'm chilled. I have to keep reminding myself that DARPA is responsible for endless positive technology (including the internet!).
Chuck, I agree that the iBot (and similar devices, like the "exoskeleton" technology) would be an enormous boon to Iraq war vets. What a difference it would have made to my generation if such technology had been available to Vietnam vets! Regarding the BrainPort, I wonder if it might help vets with PTSD in much the same way Wicab envisions it helping people with Autism:
http://www.wicab.com/research/autism/autism.html
That application, in fact, might have broad implications in the mental health field generally. A large part of anxiety, for example, has to do with sensory integration, or the lack thereof, and a consequent adrenaline rush. It seems as if BrainPort technology could be put to use in those patients, rather than prescribing anti-anxiety meds. Or, for that matter, in psychotic patients with hallucinations.
Although it sounds breathtaking, I actually have to question both the efficacy and the ethics of using it to restore vision. Has anyone read Oliver Sacks's case study "To See and Not See"? I first read it in The New Yorker in the early nineties, and it's included in his anthology An Anthropologist on Mars. Apparently, even people blinded in adulthood lose their seeing *behavior* after a relatively short time, and it becomes very difficult (sometimes impossible) for them to make sense of visual images if their sight is restored. Given that the BrainPort would restore vision only while patients were wearing it, it seems as if it might keep them trapped in a permanent state of confusion, having to switch back and forth between a tactile/temporal world and a visual/spatial world. After reading Sacks on the subject, I think it could be impossible to continuously make that adjustment or to live that way indefinitely.
Yoicks! Such rambling! Ned mentioned in one of his most recent posts that he's not here to pontificate, but to promote discussion. I'm not so sure he had novellas and extreme topic drift in mind! ;-)
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | Apr 30, 2006 9:53:41 PM
Jill, again, many thanks for your kind words. I'm no scientific genius, but I've always been interested in technology since a callow youth, and I'm always interested in the latest discoveries. I think Redtech5, my long-lost twin, is far more informed than I. (And I think it's amazing that he worked with Lee Dye, whose work I read often.) I appreciate Ned's blog, since he never fails to illuminate some topic which would otherwise be ignored in the media.
I took the liberty of sending Ned an e-mail message at what I think might be his address at ABC News (based on an actual e-mail address I have for one of his colleagues), requesting that he let us know all is well. I'll keep you advised of any response I receive, but I asked him to post a reply to his blog. Maybe we'll hear from him soon!
Posted by: chuck | May 1, 2006 8:15:19 AM
Hey all....
Day 18 and still no Ned, eh? Chuck, I hope he answers your e-mail.
I'm sure he is ok... I just worry that the bean counters at ABC are reassigning him from this blog back to network news reporting only. I say this because I personally think that ABCNews.com is beginning to cut back on original (science) coverage for the Web site.
The evidence:
- Of the Top 5 stories rotating in the "Technology & Science" section of ABCNEWS.com, only 1 ("Rescue Mission") is a science story. And it's really just a cut-down version of the 2+ minute video piece done by John Yang for World News Tonight. (For the full story, you'd have to "watch the video" online -- a free, but somewhat painful experience if you have a dial-up Net connection.)
- The other ABCNews blogger, Jake Tapper, seems to have been "removed" from blogging duties and it's now a "group" effort. A shame since he put a LOT of his personality into it... and if I wanted to know some real good insidery Beltway/Washington policitcs scoop or even just a glimpse into what life as a big network news reporer was like, well... I knew where to go.
- NO Lee Dye column for two weeks! As I mentioned in previous posts (and y'all here seem to agree with me), he's an EXCELLENT science writer and I LOVE the topics he covers.
I'm going to be a very disappointed if Ned writes back to you Chuck and says he's no longer doing the blog thing. It'll just re-affirm to me that the news business has become just that -- all about "business" rather than keeping people informed. And as we here know, science is a vital part of our world. With the amount of discoveries and experimentations--many of them with the potential to be life-altering!--going on now, we, the PUBLIC, NEED to stay informed and, dare I say, EDUCATED about these things!
Phew... Maybe I'll get off my high horse now and wait for the word from Ned. (I sure hope he comes back!)
And, as for all the kind words from Chuck and Jill.... Thanks. I'm no uber-science guy. Just like the rest of you, I just have a deep interest in science and technology. I want to know how the world works, what makes things tick, how we can make things better, etc. Science is all about finding the answers to those questions -- or at least to the discovery of even MORE questions. That's how we learn and grow. And the day we stop asking questions or seeking answers, then we're done for!
OK folks... Signing off. Here's hoping to the return of Ned!
Posted by: redtech5 | May 2, 2006 10:17:06 AM
Redtech5, Ned DID answer my e-mail, and I forwarded a copy of his reply to you at the e-mail address you have linked to your user name here. If you didn't get it, e-mail me with your address at the address linked to my name, and I'll re-send it. Ned is okay, was on vacation, and was told not to post any blogs pending a reworking of the site. But I agree with your observations and think something's afoot....
Posted by: chuck | May 2, 2006 3:53:06 PM
Yo Chuck, Jill.... and anyone else left on this blog!
Glad that Ned answered your e-mail. (And ain't it like the guy? What a genuine good guy!)
So happy to hear he was JUST away on vacation...
Not so glad to hear ABC's reworking the site... AGAIN. Unless it's to make our favorite science correspondent more prominent and easier to access, I could not care for yet another "Web site makeover."
Feh...
Ned, if you're reading this.... We miss you!
Posted by: redtech5 | May 3, 2006 9:13:57 AM
Hey Redtech! (With a big wave to Chuck!)
Ditto everything you said, especially about Ned!
As for another makeover, ugh, *except* to give the blogs big, jazzy promotions on the home page.
The last little tweak I noticed around here was plopping that ugly, black-on-French's-Mustard-yellow logo up at the top of each page. I know it's been the ABC logo for aeons, but that's the problem - it's been the ABC logo for AEONS. The colors instantly make me think of the "Fallout Shelter" signs of my youth - immediate flashback to the Fifties and Sixties. ABC, if you're going for a retro look, you've succeeded, but it doesn't seem fitting for a NEWS organization. It carries with it the ghosts of men in fedora hats arriving home at 6 p.m. on the dot ("Hon-eey, I'm hoo-ooome!") and settling into their favorite armchairs, while wives in ruffled aprons serve them martinis and turn the flickery black-and-white TV's in big cabinets to either Huntley-Brinkley or Walter Cronkite.
If you want to put time and money into a redesign, invest it in a new logo that doesn't look outdated by half a century - and leave the rest of the site alone! (INCLUDING our favorite bloggers!)
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | May 3, 2006 7:08:01 PM
Hey all...
So I'm cruising around the ABCNews site, jus tchecking up on stories when I run into the blog... 'Scuze me... "blotter" that is being run by Brian Ross. Check it out, if you haven't yet:
Main page:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/
The "blog" itself:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/
If this is where ABCNews is going with the blogs, I'm a bit mixed.
On the one hand, I like the fact that everything is "centralized" so if you're a big "fan" of Brian Ross and his investigative reports (and reporting style) then it's all there! (I mean, I could see our man Ned getting his OWN page and I think THAT would be AWESOME!)
BUT......
The blog itself.... Seems like a LOT of "wasted" space! On the left hand side is a list of the most recent blogs... Which one can already easily see by just scrolling down the main column in the center. Seems duplicative, especially since all the posts in the center are time/date stamped, so it's not like the reader wouldn't KNOW these were "recent posts."
Click on the "users comments" link on any post and you can see the "recent posts" navigation on the left then makes more sense, BUT.... I find the center section is still too NARROW so any posts of significant size will require a lot of scrolling.
Maybe that's the point? That they want to keep posts (and user comments?) short and so the narrower display column will force people to be brief?
I dunno... I'm not sure I like the format and would be "happier" if ABC made that change for Ned's blog. I can't imagine how posts with pictures--sometimes necessary when you're dealing with posts about new discoveries like the NASA stuff Ned's been so good at!--would look like.
Eh... Then again, having a redesigned sceince blog would be better than what we have now--NO blog at ALL! :-(
And I agree with you, Jill, 100% on the awful awful logo... The sickly yellow just does NOT MATCH the softer "pastel" blue. Sheesh.... You'd think these guys would hire some sort of "color consultant" or something! ;-)
Posted by: redtech5 | May 5, 2006 9:41:44 AM
My greetings and salutations to you both, Jill and Redtech5, since it seems we three are the only ones here anymore! Redtech5, I am a big fan of Brian Ross and I really like his reports. In fact, I think he's probably the best investigative reporter working today, but I agree with you in that his blog site isn't extremely well-designed. I wouldn't appreciate that design for other reporters' blogs, since it does seem to emphasize form over content. Jill, it seems ABC is moving away from their logo on the mustard yellow background and is using other colors as a background (my favorite is teal), at least in their commercials and promotions on TV. On the website, though, it seems we're stuck with yellow, which makes me a sickly green! Maybe the website designers will change the color!
Posted by: chuck | May 5, 2006 4:11:28 PM
Hey guys -
Good catch, Redtech! I took a quick look at the home page yesterday morning and noticed the Brian Ross "blotter" promo at the top, but I didn't take the time to check it out. Who knew it was a blog!?
So here's the good news: You can see that it's the same blog software. It looks as if the design is highly customizable - and ABC customized away to give the Brian Ross Blotter a completely different look.
So THAT means that if (*when*, I HOPE!) Ned's blog is redesigned, it could have basically the same format it does now. Even if ABC wants to give it a new look with new colors and italicized comments, Ned could theoretically request as wide an area for his posts as he needs in order to include graphics.
Now we just have to hope that Ned IS given his own page!
Chuck, that's good news about the logo. (I also feel less freakish knowing that I'm not the only one who feels sick looking at that yellow.) I haven't had much time to watch TV lately and tend to get most of my news online, so I haven't seen the on-air change. I'm guessing now that the ads on this site for Nightline in the past couple of weeks may be representative of what you're talking about? They run through a gold-yellow-green-teal-blue spectrum all in one ad. Hey, I'm with you on the teal! :-)
Ned, PLEASE come back to us with your very OWN page above the fold, like Brian Ross! ABC News BADLY needs SUBSTANCE on the most visible part of the home page, like investigative reporting and science, rather than fluff like the "Hot Topics" section!
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | May 6, 2006 10:43:35 AM
Hey, Chuck and Redtech? Have you posted a comment on the Brian Ross blog/blotter/whatever? I did, right after my last message here on Saturday. I bore in mind your thoughts about the length of messages, Redtech, and kept it very brief (2-3 sentences). I was polite and appreciative and agreed with the reporter who wrote the piece. I don't think I broke any rules. My comment didn't appear. It wasn't just a delay, like the one on this blog. It NEVER appeared. Did either of you have better luck? Do you think they might choose a sampling of the best/most salient comments and discard the rest? Or maybe it's a software bug?
Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | May 8, 2006 9:09:10 AM
Hey Jill,
Nope. I've never tried posting on other ABCNews blogs/message boards except Ned's and Jake Tapper's.
As to your missing post... I don't think the folks running the Web version of ABC News have the time or manpower to be editing/cherry-picking user comments. Just look at their message boards and it's like near total chaos.
So, your post on Ross' "blotter" is probably missing because of a design issue and/or a software bug. And maybe that's why they want to try and fix it so that when Ned has to go over to that new format, everything will be hunky-dory for him and his three biggest fans! ;-)
Posted by: Redtech5 | May 8, 2006 1:14:27 PM
Post a comment
