Liquid cooling comes from LED bulbs • HWzone
Gadgets

Liquid cooling comes from LED lamps

A Chinese company called UGetLight has developed its own version of LED lamps that use liquid for Their lighting fixtures

Get updates from everyone in TelgramGet updates from us all at TelgramJoin the channel now


Led bulbs have been a hit in recent years thanks to the power savings they offer combined with natural lighting rather than the fluorescent lighting to which we have become accustomed without much love.

But since their arrival on the market, problems have been discovered with the interesting technology. Problems that were already known during its development, and various methods were used to deal with them.

These problems focus on the overheating of the light fixtures inside the bulb. Although low voltage is used, temperatures can climb rapidly if no solution is available .

The LED bulbs we have come to know make use of fins Metallic in most cases, but these fins add to the weight of the bulb and the price and their heat dissipation solve the problem but only partially.

No new solution

Switch Lighting from California was the first Which showed liquid-cooled LED lamps The consumer market has been at 2012. Switch uses liquid silicon that fills the The lamp allows the LED bulbs to cool down, using a unique piston that moves with the liquid. The piston prevents unnecessary pressure when the liquid expands and contracts as a result of the accumulation of heat.

The use of liquid cooling extends the life of the bulb, and also allows the use of most LED bulbs to reach the equivalent of a bulb of 100 watts of power - without unnecessary volume increase.

The bulb has developed a switch and offers Liquid and unusual design

The solution is not very simple, but effective. This efficiency, however, costs money and LED light bulbs from Switch are priced at $ 30 for a bulb that offers parallel 40 watts.

A simpler application

Now an anonymous company named UGetLight from China has entered the picture Offers LED bulbs Which are more like the familiar incandescent bulbs that contain the coolant. The lamps contain a space for expansion and contraction of the liquid inside the bulb body in the form of air bubbles.

And this is how the new UGetLight bulb looks - more standard, but still intriguing

The design is simple, but not without problems. One of them is that the existence of the air bubble causes uneven lighting. The distributed light is hidden or distorted by the bubble and causes uneven lighting.

A closer look

The new product, however, is already available on sites such as AliExpress at prices ranging from 189 dollars for a package of four bulbs (you can choose different colors), or between 8 and 25 for Nora dollars for wholesale orders of starting from 10000 units.

Will liquid-cooled bulbs offer the elegant solution to our needs, or is it just a milestone in a much longer journey? It has been many years since the incandescent bulb was invented, and with its relative inefficiency, it is still a sales hit today.

This is how the proposed bulb looks at sales sites throughout the Internet

Neon bulbs and other solutions offer cheaper pricing but at the price of unnatural light. Studies have shown that natural lighting, or at least one that includes the entire spectrum of visible spectrum, is more beneficial to health.


Tags

5 תגובות

  1. In the matter of fluorescence
    There are now plastic cladding domes that cost a pretty cheap price 15-30. The domes break apart and you can put whatever you want inside the base, the color of the dome changes the color of light from a rectangular shade of light to a relatively pleasant bread, which is very close to that of an incandescent bulb. The LED is too weak in power and expensive for what it gives. I got the chance to get a corn bulb in the form of a corn roll with a very bright purple light instead of being a warm color (I ordered a WARM) of a bulb. And on another occasion when I ordered at 2400K color temp the light bulb was white more than yellow. There is no uniformity in hot color settings at all and just wasting money. To date, Philips has a LED bulb with a yellow built-in cladding known as a Master, but it is very expensive.
    http://www.amazon.de/Philips-LED-Lampe-LEDbulb-Normallampenform-Abstrahlwinkel/dp/B00CZ7WVLC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396498105&sr=8-2&keywords=philips+LED+MASTER

  2. A totally false article
    First of all, the reason for the success of LED bulbs stems from the fact that we were forced to purchase ourselves by outlawing various bulbs, publicity campaigns and Greenwash, as well as depriving us of our free market. LED lights are ineffective at all because of light efficiency and have a very short lifespan. Also, many of them pose an electric shock due to the use of metal parts in the bulb body itself.
    The light quality of LED lights is the lowest of all home lights. Even a "cold white fluorescent fluorescent" fluorescent light produces a more pleasing light for the eyes from the brain (regardless of the color and delivery of the LED and the fluorescent).
    Second: how much can it be repeated ??? There is no such thing as "neon lighting" !!!!! Say fluorescent lighting !!!!!! Fluorescent bulb is not a fluorescent bulb !!!!!!! It contains no neon mercury !!!!!! These are two bulbs of a completely different type (neon is what is in the red-lit lights).

  3. To 2 dor123
    What a strange response, so much crap in one response. First, incandescent bulbs were outlawed for very good reasons. Probably not for hurting your free market. Only 3 world countries continue to buy them. Mercury-containing bulbs were also outlawed and fluorine bulbs did not contain mercury. LED efficiency is good and almost identical to fluorine bulbs and once they are treated with the reactive power LED efficiency will be better than any other bulb. The cooling idea is extremely successful and I recommend

  4. ravine
    Dor's response shows an extreme opinion. But let's check it out:

    6 100W incandescent bulbs consume 600KWh for their 6000 hours of life (and suppose they are replaced one after the other and not activated in parallel). When calculating the approximate electricity price consumed is NIS 360. Plus 6 Philips quality incandescent bulbs, Osram or similar, the price is NIS 380.

    One 25W CFL bulb consumes 150KWH for its 6000 hours of life, giving the same light output as the 100W incandescent bulb. The electricity consumption will be NIS 90, plus a quality incremental CFL bulb. The price is NIS 130, which is NIS 250 less than the incandescent lamp.

    The user has no interest in burning 250 NIS. That's enough reason not to use the incandescent bulb in any average home use. But if he does, there is probably a reason he chooses the incandescent bulb: cheap bulbs for casual use (in a chain of bulbs for hanging, in a shelter, and so on) , Bulb heat use, and so on.

    Over the past 10 years and before the outbreak of the incandescent bulb, the CFL bulb has gained incredible momentum only thanks to market forces. This means that it is a bulb that meets its expectations and without further intervention, would have urged the incandescent bulb to remain a sideshow, whose part in national electricity consumption is nil, and without pushing it out of line.

    Its out-of-the-box push won't change much in the long run, except you have to buy expensive CFL or LED bulbs for a chain that will be used once a year and more time thrown away in the warehouse, from where they steal those expensive bulbs and then there will be a war and sit there in the dark.

    The CFL bulb that costs NIS 40, and yet saved NIS 250 for its lifetime, is not a cheap bulb that causes headaches and burns within a week. Such a bulb contains high-quality fluorescent coatings that emit high-quality light (in all colors including warm, medium and cold white). Is the best option today for interior lighting with E27 screws

    The LED light emits a similar amount of light to the CFL for the same power, but there is a difference: the spectrum of the LED is much lower than the CFL. When people buy CFL from an unknown company in NIS 10 and complain that they have headaches, I have nothing to say except "they deserve." Knocked out and going to buy a normal company CFL LED has its place in lighting, but not as lighting for living rooms or workplaces

    Now, let's review your response:

    The incandescent bulbs, as I said before, have been forcibly removed from the market to speed up the natural process of switching to CFL or LED. In any case, the general mass of the population would have passed to them within a few years. The only result of the move in the long run is that you cannot use an incandescent bulb in the few places where it is exactly the right bulb, and you have to replace it with less suitable bulbs - and sometimes harm environmental benefits.

    All fluorescent bulbs and CFLs contain mercury. Some mercury bulbs come in the form of an amalgam, when you turn on the bulb, the amalgam decomposes back into mercury and other materials that do not participate in the light emission process. The level of mercury toxicity is medium and very easy to maintain in a way that is non-toxic (amalgam) during bulb production. The same cannot be said for chemicals used in the manufacture of electronic components, including LEDs… ..

    There is no relationship between efficiency and reactive power. Go and learn what reactive power is.

    The light efficiency of LEDs is in the same range with the fluorescent and CFL bulbs, with these and other models of bulbs being better or better. "Reactive power treatment technology" already exists and is now found in every normal quality computer supplier. CFL bulbs were manufactured that contained it. Reactive power is not a measure of power consumption, the bulbs with a PFC had a significantly lower reactive power, but the active power is completely identical to those of the bulbs without a PFC.

    There is no justification for producing more expensive bulbs containing PFC in screw E27, because they go for home use. The justification for PFC exists in large systems such as public buildings, and where appropriate lighting fixtures are also used for professional market bulbs - such as PL, T8 and T5 bulbs, which contain PFC as part of the lighting fixture.

    The cooling method looks good, but keep in mind it's still an LED light. It is a good option for places where you just want light and no matter what the quality of light is. For living or working rooms, I recommend only a top quality CFL from a leading company

  5. To dor123 and Guy
    Dor's response shows an extreme opinion. But let's check it out:

    6 100W incandescent bulbs consume 600KWh for their 6000 hours of life (and suppose they are replaced one after the other and not activated in parallel). When calculating the approximate electricity price consumed is NIS 360. Plus 6 Philips quality incandescent bulbs, Osram or similar, the price is NIS 380.

    One 25W CFL bulb consumes 150KWH for its 6000 hours of life, giving the same light output as the 100W incandescent bulb. The electricity consumption will be NIS 90, plus a quality incremental CFL bulb. The price is NIS 120, which is NIS 260 less than the incandescent lamp.

    The user has no interest in burning 260 NIS. That's enough reason not to use the incandescent bulb in any average home use. But if he does, there is probably a reason he chooses the incandescent bulb: cheap bulbs for casual use (in a chain of bulbs for hanging, in a shelter, and so on) , Bulb heat use, and so on.

    Over the past 10 years and before the outbreak of the incandescent bulb, the CFL bulb has gained incredible momentum only thanks to market forces. This means that it is a bulb that meets its expectations and without further intervention, would have urged the incandescent bulb to remain a sideshow, whose part in national electricity consumption is nil, and without pushing it out of line.

    Its out-of-the-box push won't change much in the long run, except you have to buy expensive CFL or LED bulbs for a chain that will be used once a year and more time thrown away in the warehouse, from where they steal those expensive bulbs and then there will be a war and sit there in the dark.

    The CFL bulb that costs NIS 40, and yet saved NIS 260 for its lifetime, is not a cheap bulb that causes headaches and burns within a week. Such a bulb contains high-quality fluorescent coatings that emit high-quality light (in all colors including warm, medium and cold white). Is the best option today for interior lighting with E27 screws

    The LED light emits a similar amount of light to the CFL for the same power, but there is a difference: the spectrum of the LED is much lower than the CFL. When people buy CFL from an unknown company in NIS 10 and complain that they have headaches, I have nothing to say except "they deserve." Knocked out and going to buy a normal company CFL LED has its place in lighting, but not as lighting for living rooms or workplaces

    And let's check Guy's response:

    The incandescent bulbs, as I said before, have been forcibly removed from the market to speed up the natural process of switching to CFL or LED. In any case, the general mass of the population would have passed to them within a few years. The only result of the move in the long run is that you cannot use an incandescent bulb in the few places where it is exactly the right bulb, and you have to replace it with less suitable bulbs - and sometimes harm environmental benefits.

    All fluorescent bulbs and CFLs contain mercury. Most mercury bulbs come in the form of an amalgam, when you turn on the bulb, the amalgam decomposes back into mercury and other materials that do not participate in the light emission process. The level of mercury toxicity is medium and very easy to maintain in a way that is non-toxic (amalgam) during bulb production. The same cannot be said for chemicals used in the manufacture of electronic components, including LEDs… ..

    There is no relationship between efficiency and reactive power. Go and learn what reactive power is.

    The light efficiency of LEDs is in the same range with the fluorescent and CFL bulbs, with these and other models of bulbs being better or better. "Reactive power treatment technology" already exists and is now found in every normal quality computer supplier. CFL bulbs were manufactured that contained it. Reactive power is not a measure of power consumption, the bulbs with a PFC had a significantly lower reactive power, but the active power is completely identical to those of the bulbs without a PFC.

    There is no justification for producing more expensive bulbs containing PFC in screw E27, because they go for home use. The justification for PFC exists in large systems such as public buildings, and where appropriate lighting fixtures are also used for professional market bulbs - such as PL, T8 and T5 bulbs, which contain PFC as part of the lighting fixture.

    The cooling method looks good, but keep in mind it's still an LED light. It is a good option for places where you just want light and no matter what the quality of light is. For living or working rooms, I recommend only a top quality CFL from a leading company

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close
Close