Talk:Haitz's law

Untitled

The last sentence of the article says:

"The theoretical maximum for a white LED with phosphorescence mixing is 250 lm/W"

It is incorrect, or at least incomplete. It depends on the spectral composition of the light and where you cut the integration of the spectral density function of the eye. If you cut in a range of 400-700nm for a 5800K black body the eficacy is 251 lm/W but, if you cut at 5% of eye photopic sensitivy range, which is a bigger range, the same 5800K black body efficacy raises to 348 lm/W.

In fact Cree has announced lately a prototype white LED with an efficiency of 303 lm/W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.105.58 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering how Cree managed to surpass the "theoretical maximum" by a wide margin. 71.219.208.150 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Haitz's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927051559/http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1289396994146 to http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1289396994146
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720122730/http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1265232091259 to http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1265232091259
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716211122/http://www.cree.com:80/press/press_detail.asp?i=1304945651119 to http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1304945651119

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

this is little more than rather shameless self-promotion

Apparently, someone is attempting to get attention by contriving an LED analogue to Moore's Law.

It doesn't take much understanding of solid state physics and crystal growth processes to notice a fundamental silliness in this type of prediction. But hey - roll the dice - if you're wrong, it will just be forgotten, right? Wikibearwithme (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Like Moore's Law it is only so-called and not a physical law at all. Perhaps the article ought to be renamed Haitz's "Law" 49.145.132.39 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Can not get info on more efficient lighting than LED

« This would be the case if enough industrial and government resources were spent for research on LED-lighting. More than 50% of the electricity consumption for lighting (20% of the totally consumed electrical energy) would be saved reaching 200 lm/W. This prospect and other stepping-stone applications of LEDs (e.g. mobile phone flash and LCD-backlighting) led to a massive investment in LED-research so that the LED efficacy did indeed cross 100 lm/W in 2010. If this trend continues, LEDs will become the most efficient light source by 2020. »

From this I conclude there is a lighting technology which is more efficient than LED and can achieve 200 lumen/W. I searched the Internet and could not find anything. Even the Luminous efficacy article seems to state there is no real alternative which surpasses LED efficiency nor one which can achieve 200 lumen/W. Article should be reviewed and changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7EEC:4300:E081:F560:B9A5:1E9F (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)