Hello,
1. Saya tdk bisa memberikan konfirmasi, karana yg akan memberikan konfirmasi adalah pembuat Mobile tersebut yg menggunakan LED jenis apa yg akan kita urai nantinya dibawah.
2. Pernyataan: " Bila macula lutea rusak, maka hanya tinggal waktu akan terkena kanker mata,"
Bisa dikatakan tdk ada hubungan antara kerusakan macula yg diakibatkan penuaan jaringan dg cancer yg berarti pertumbuhan jaringan
3. "Bukan hanya kerusakan pada macula lutea, pada awalnya bisa menyebabkan mata kering, katarak, kerusakan penglihatan, kemudian menjadi buta."
Mata kering mungkin menjadi penyebab macula degradation tetapi, katarak (kerusakan lensa mata yg menjadi buram), kerusakan penglihatan akibat penuaan n kerusakan bidang sensor data bukan n berebda dg keruskan macula.
4. " JANGAN DIABAIKAN PESAN PENTING INI BUAT KITA DAN TERUTAMA BUAT PENGLIHATAN ANAK2 KITA..!! bc info ini...<3<3 " merupkan bentuk pernyataan Hoax walaupun bebrapa info nya ada benarnya.
So bila kita mau membahasnya, kita akan teruskan dg hal2 sbb:
1. LED terpaut dari panjang gelombang yg di timbulkan pada bahan pembuatnya; sehingga hasilnya sinar yg dimunculkan tdk hanya di ukur intensitas cahayanya tetapi juga berada pada panjang gelombang berapakah LED tersebut
LED kemudian di buat di balik layar LCD atau langsung sebagai OLED utk menyajikan pixel per inches nya yg kemeudian bisa dilihat oleh mata manusia sebagai bentuk gambar utuh, gambar berjalan / video, atau sekedar character hitam n putih; biru n putih dstnya.
So, yg penting ketika membeli mobile screen adalah memperhatikan berapakah resolusi per incesnya n jumlah pixel pemberi cahaya.
Ini sangat terlihat ketika mata harus berakomodasi lebih utk resolusi yg rendah n cukup relaks utk pixel per inches yg rapat.
2. pesawat yg resolusi tinggi tentu memberikan kenyamanan pada mata lebih dibandingkan yg beresolusi rendah; tetapi, ketika sekeliling menjadi gelab, n mata disuruh menapat cahaya yg sangat terang dari persawat yg dihidupkan pada saat ruangan gelab, membuat mata ikut berakomodasi utk menyaring cahaya yg masuk.
kembali pada penggunaan LED di #1 diatas, bila frekwensi gelombang cahaya yg digunakan near UV, maka akan sangat mempengaruhi kerja mata, walaupun intensitas atau contras bisa diatur.
Oleh karena itu sangat tdk dianjurkan utk menggunakan mobile/ komputer dg envi yg gelab, karana baik CRT maupun LED keduanya memberikan kerja akomodasi mata lebih pada envi yg gelab.
Pesawat2 itu dirancang utk mobile tetpi bukan utk envi yg gelab.
3. Beberapa jenis LED justru digunkan utk mempengaruhi line of sight nya mata n itu dg frekwensi spectrum tertentu sebagai manipulator hormon melatonin, n mengakibatakan user bisa lebih nyenyak tidur n berkontribusi pada caiaran mata sehingga memperbaiki line of sight nya mata.
So, kalau lihat yg mau disampaikan, ya perlu tdk menggunakan mobile ketika mau tidur, karana tidur adalah ritme utk berisitirahat, sedangkan penggunaan Mobile phone adalah membutuhkan kesegaran, apalagi klo main game.
4. The LED's Dark Secret
Solid-state lighting won't supplant the lightbulb until it can overcome the mysterious malady known as "droop"
The blue light-emitting diode, arguably the greatest optoelectronic advance of the past 25 years, harbors a dark secret: Crank up the current and its efficiencies will plummet. The problem is known as droop, and it’s not only puzzling the brightest minds in the field, it’s also threatening the future of the electric lighting industry.
Tech visionaries have promised us a bright new world where cool and efficient white LEDs, based on blue ones, will replace the wasteful little heaters known as incandescent lightbulbs. More than a dozen countries have already enacted legislation that bans, or will soon ban, incandescent bulbs. But it’s hard to imagine LEDs dislodging incandescents and coming to dominate the world electric lighting industry, unless we can defeat droop.
In flashlights, in backlights for screens in cellphones and now televisions, and in a bunch of other applications, white LEDs already constitute a multibillion-dollar market. But that’s just a US $5 billion niche compared to the overall lighting industry, whose sales next year should reach $100 billion, according to the market research firm Global Industry Analysts. The trick will be to make LEDs turn electricity into light efficiently enough to offset their relatively high cost—roughly 16 cents per lumen, at lightbulb-type brightness, as opposed to about 0.1 cents or less for incandescents.
Look at the competition and you’d think the job was easy. Today’s garden-variety incandescent bulbs aren’t much different from the ones Thomas Edison sold more than a century ago. They still waste 90 percent of their power, delivering roughly 16 lumens per watt. Fluorescent tubes do a lot better, at more than 100 lm/W, but even they pale next to the best LEDs. The current state-of-the-art white LED pumps out around 250 lm/W, and there’s no reason why that figure won’t reach 300 lm/W.
Unfortunately, these LEDs perform at their best only at low power—the few milliamps it takes to backlight the little screen on your mobile phone, for instance. At the current levels needed for general lighting, droop kicks in, and down you go, below 100 lm/W.
The first-ever report of light emission from a semiconductor was by the British radio engineer Henry Joseph Round, who noted a yellowish glow emanating from silicon carbide in 1907. However, the first devices at all similar to today’s LEDs arrived only in the 1950s, at Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories, at Fort Monmouth, in New Jersey. Researchers there fabricated orange-emitting devices; green, red, and yellow equivalents followed in the ’60s and ’70s, all of them quite inefficient.
The great leap toward general lighting came in the mid-1990s, when Shuji Nakamura, then at Nichia Corp., in Tokushima, Japan, developed the first practical bright-blue LED using nitride-based compound semiconductors. (Nakamura’s achievement won him the 2006 Millennium Technology Prize, the approximate equivalent in engineering of a Nobel Prize.) Once you’ve got blue light, you can get white by passing the blue rays through a yellow phosphor. The phosphor absorbs some of the blue and reradiates it as yellow; the combination of blue and yellow makes white.
All LEDs are fabricated as aggregated sections, or regions, of different semiconductor materials. Each of these regions plays a specific role. One region serves as a source of electrons; it consists of a crystal of a compound semiconductor into which tiny amounts of an impurity, such as silicon, have been introduced. Each such atom of impurity, or dopant, has four electrons in its outer shell, compared with the three in an atom of gallium, aluminum, or indium. When a dopant takes a place that one of these other atoms would normally occupy, it adds an electron to the crystalline lattice. The extra electron moves easily though the crystal, acting as a carrier of negative charge. With this surfeit of negative charges, such a material is called n -type.
At the opposite end of the LED is a region of p -type material, so called because it has excess positive-charge carriers, created by doping with an element such as zinc or magnesium. These metals are made up of atoms with only two electrons in their outer shell. When such an atom sits in place of an atom of aluminum, gallium, or a chemically similar element (from group III in the periodic table), the lattice ends up an electron short. That vacancy behaves as a positive charge, moving throughout the crystal like the missing tile in a sort-the-number puzzle. That mobile vacancy is called a hole.
In the middle of the sandwich are several extraordinarily thin layers. These constitute the active region, where light is produced. Some layers made of one semiconducting material surround a central layer made of another, creating a ”well” just a few atoms thick—a trench so confined that the laws of quantum mechanics rule supreme. When you inject electrons and holes into the well by applying a voltage to the n - and p -type regions, the two kinds of charge carriers will be trapped, maximizing the likelihood that they will recombine. When they do, a photon pops out.
To make an LED, you must grow a series of highly defined semiconductor layers on a thin wafer of a crystalline material, called a substrate. The substrate for red, orange, and yellow LEDs is gallium arsenide, which works wonderfully because its atoms are spaced out identically to those of the layers built on top of it. Hardly any mechanical strain develops in the semiconductor’s crystalline lattice during fabrication, so there are very few defects, which would quench light generation.
Unfortunately, blue and green LEDs lack such a good platform. They’re called nitride LEDs because their fundamental semiconductor is gallium nitride. The n -type gallium nitride is doped with silicon, the p -type with magnesium. The quantum wells in between are gallium indium nitride. To alter the light color emitted from green to violet, researchers vary the gallium-to-indium ratio in the quantum wells. A little indium produces a violet LED; a little more of it produces green.
Such LEDs would ideally be manufactured on gallium nitride substrates. But it has proved impossible to grow the large, perfect crystals of gallium nitride that would be necessary to make such wafers. Unipress, of Warsaw, the world leader in this field, cannot make crystals bigger than a few centimeters, and then only by keeping the growth chamber at a temperature of 2200 C and a pressure of almost 20 000 atmospheres.
So the makers of blue LEDs instead typically build their devices on wafers of sapphire, whose crystalline structure does not quite match that of the nitrides. And that discrepancy gives rise to many defects—billions of them per square centimeter.
It is amazing that such LEDs work at all. Any arsenide-based red, orange, or yellow LED that contained as many defects would emit absolutely no light. To this day, researchers, including Nakamura himself—who moved to the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) in 1999—can’t agree on the cause of the phenomenon. Perhaps the solution to this problem may also explain droop.
The explanation won’t come easily. When researchers set out to find the cause of droop in nitride LEDs, one of their first suspects was heat, which they knew could cause droop in arsenide LEDs. There, heat imparts so much energy to the electrons and holes that the quantum well can no longer trap them. Instead of recombining, some of them escape, only to be swept away by the electric fields in the device. But researchers dismissed this possibility after noting that nitride LEDs suffered from droop even when driven by short, pulsed voltages spaced far enough apart to let the devices cool down.
Another theory was proposed as far back as 1996 by Nakamura. He argued that everything could be explained by the structure of the quantum well. Nakamura and his colleagues looked at LEDs with a transmission electron microscope and were surprised to find light and dark areas within the quantum well, suggesting that the material there was not uniform. They then investigated the crystalline structure more closely, using X-ray diffraction, and found that the quantum well had indium-rich clusters (bright) next to indium-poor areas (dark).
Nakamura conjectured that because the indium clusters were free from defects, the electrons and holes would be trapped in them, making bright emission possible, at least at low currents. Continuing with this line of reasoning, Nakamura’s team argued that LEDs’ high efficiency at low currents stemmed from a very high proportion of electron-hole recombination in defect-free clusters. At higher currents, however, these clusters would become saturated, and any additional charge carriers would spill over into regions having defects dense enough to kill light emission. The saturation at high current, they suggested, accounted for the observed droop.
This theory has fallen out of favor in recent years. ”To start with, we saw indium-rich clusters in InGaN quantum wells, just as the rest of the world did,” explains Colin Humphreys, the head of the Cambridge Centre for Gallium Nitride at the University of Cambridge, in England. But then he and his team began to suspect that their electron microscope was causing the very thing it was detecting. So the group carried out low-dose electron microscopy. ”We looked at the first few frames—a very low exposure—and saw no indium clustering at all. But as we exposed the material to the beam, these clusters developed,” he says. They concluded that the clustering was merely an artifact of measurement.
In 2003, Humphreys presented that jaw-dropping finding at the Fifth International Conference on Nitride Semiconductors, in Nara, Japan. It wasn’t well received. Many delegates contended that something must have gone wrong with the Cambridge samples. So Humphreys’s group went back and studied a wider variety of specimens, including LEDs supplied by Nichia. Their work only reinforced their view that the clusters were formed by electron-beam damage.
In 2007, Humphreys’s Cambridge team, together with researchers at the University of Oxford, described how they had attacked the problem with what’s known as a three-dimensional atom probe. This device applies a high voltage that evaporates atoms on a surface, then sends them individually through a mass spectroscope, which identifies each one by its charge-to-mass ratio. By evaporating one layer after the other and putting all the data together, you can render a 3-D image of the surface with atomic precision.
The resulting images confirmed, again, what the electron microscope had shown: There is no clustering. Discrediting the cluster theory was an important step, even though it left the research community without an alternative explanation for droop.
Then, on 13 February 2007, the California-based LED manufacturing giant Philips Lumileds Lighting Co. made the stunning claim that it had ”fundamentally solved” the problem of droop. It even said that it would soon include its droop-abating technology in samples of its flagship Luxeon LEDs.
Lumileds kept the cause of droop under wraps for several months. Then, at the meeting of the International Conference of Nitride Semiconductors, held September 2007 in Las Vegas, it presented a paper putting the blame on Auger recombination—a process, named after the 20th-century French physicist Pierre-Victor Auger, that involves the interaction of an electron and a hole with another carrier, all without the emission of light.
The idea was pretty radical, and it has had a mixed reception. Applied Physics Letters published Lumileds’ paper only after repeated rejections and revisions. ”In my experience, it was one of the most difficult papers to get out there,” says Mike Krames, director of the company’s Advanced Laboratories.
Krames’s team used a laser to probe a layer of gallium indium nitride, the semiconductor used for quantum wells in a nitride LED. They tuned the laser to a wavelength that only the gallium indium nitride layer would absorb, so that each zap created pairs of electrons and holes that then recombined to produce photons. When the researchers graphed the resulting photoluminescence against different intensities impinging on the sample, they produced curves that closely fit an equation that described the effects of Auger recombination.
The bad news is that you can’t eliminate this kind of recombination, which is proportional to the cube of the density of carriers. So in a nutshell, if you’ve got carriers—which of course you need to generate light—you’ve also got Auger recombination. The good news, though, is that Lumileds has shown that you can push the peak of your efficiency to far higher currents by cutting carrier density—that is, by spreading the carriers over more material. The company does so with what’s known as a double heterostructure (DH), essentially a quantum well that’s 13 nanometers wide, rather than the usual 3 or 4 nm. It still shows quantum effects, although they are not so pronounced, and the design is less efficient than the standard one at low currents. Still, it excels at higher currents. The Lumileds team has created a test version that delivers a peak efficiency slightly higher than that of a conventional LED.
Promising though this new crystalline structure may be, it is difficult to grow. Perhaps this is why Lumileds has yet to incorporate the design into its Luxeon LEDs. ”There are multiple paths to dealing with droop, and we’ve investigated most of these paths,” says Krames. ”We have new structures in the pipeline, DH as well as non-DH, and we will move forward with the best structure.”
Not everyone is convinced that Auger recombination is the cause of droop. One such skeptic is Jörg Hader, a University of Arizona theorist, who works with former colleagues in Germany at Philipps-Universität Marburg and at one of the world’s biggest LED manufacturers, Osram Opto Semiconductors, in Regensburg.
”All [Lumileds] showed was that they can fit the results with a dependence that is like Auger,” claims Hader. ”It’s a fairly weak argument to see a fit that fits, and see what might correspond to that fitting.” In his view, there’s a good chance that the Lumileds data could also be fitted with other density dependencies, as well as the cubed dependence that is classically associated with Auger recombination.
Hader has calculated the magnitude of direct Auger recombination for a typical blue LED. The equations that describe this interaction of an electron and a hole with a third carrier date back to the 1950s, but that doesn’t mean that they are easy to solve. Hader says he took no shortcuts. Instead, he accounted for all physical interactions in a program tens of thousands of lines long, a program that in its initial form would have taken several years to run. However, Hader says he’s learned what he can omit safely in order to get the running time down to just 1 minute. He says the model shows that Auger losses are too small to account for LED droop, although he does allow that droop might be caused by other processes related to Auger recombination. These processors are more complicated because they also involve defects in the material or thermal vibrations (phonons, in quantum terms) of the semiconductor crystal.
Krames criticizes Hader’s calculations for leaving out the possibility that electrons might occupy higher energy levels, known as higher conduction bands. But Hader believes that including these bands would hardly affect his conclusions.
This May, computer scientists at UCSB brought new evidence to bear on this debate. Chris Van de Walle’s team included a second conduction band in their calculations of Auger recombination in nitrides and concluded that Auger contributes strongly to droop. However, they modeled only the bulk materials, not realistic quantum wells, for which Van de Walle admits his methods cannot handle the calculations, at least not on today’s computers.
Hader does not doubt the general shape of the UCSB results. However, he points out that the value Van de Walle’s team has taken for the second conduction band substantially differs from that given in certain academic papers. Using these published values would have profound effects on any estimate of the magnitude of Auger recombination. The conclusions of Hader and Van de Walle highlight the lack of consensus among theorists over the cause of droop.
Meanwhile, a group headed by E. Fred Schubert at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, N.Y., has proposed yet another theory. His team, in collaboration with Samsung, blames droop on the leakage of too many electrons from the quantum well.
Interestingly, Schubert’s team, like the researchers at Lumileds, drew its conclusions by pumping light into the nitride structures and observing the light that those structures emitted in response. But Schubert and company investigated full LED structures, and they compared the results they’d obtained from optical pumping with light output generated when a voltage was applied, as it is in normal operation. As expected, droop kicked in when the device was pumped electrically. But the researchers saw no sign of droop in the photoluminescence data.
They then brought in Joachim Piprek, a theorist from the NUSOD Institute, a device simulation consultancy in Newark, Del. He used a computer model to simulate the behavior of a blue LED and found that the strong internal fields characteristic of nitrides must be causing electrons to leak out of the wells.
Now Schubert and his colleagues have produced direct evidence to back up their argument for leakage. They took an LED unconnected to any circuit and hit it with light at a wavelength of 405 nm, which is absorbed only in the quantum wells. The researchers detected a voltage across the diode, implying that carriers must leave the wells, contradicting Lumileds’ theory.
Schubert’s team has tried to control electron leakage by redesigning the LED. By carefully selecting the materials for the active region—switching from the conventional gallium nitride barrier to an aluminum gallium indium nitride version—they have been able to eliminate the charges that tend to form wherever distinct crystalline layers meet. They say such ”polarization matching” consistently cuts droop, raising power output by 25 percent at high currents.
Schubert believes that the electrons that leak out of the wells recombine with holes in the p -type region. If he could detect this recombination, it would certainly add weight to his explanation. ”We’ve looked for that luminescence,” says Schubert, ”but we have not seen it.” He’s not surprised, though, because p -type gallium nitride is a very inefficient light emitter, and the LED’s surface is nearby, so surface recombination at the top contact is also likely.
However, it is possible to detect electrons in the p -type region by modifying the standard LED structure, and researchers at UCSB have done just this. This team, led by Steven DenBaars and Nakamura, did the job of fitting the p -type region with an additional quantum well, one that emits light of a color different from that of the main LED. At a workshop in Montreux, Switzerland, in the fall of 2008, the group reported that they had found just this sort of emission.
Although this experiment proved that electrons do flow into the p -type region, it can’t tell us where they came from. And while Schubert’s theory of electron leakage could explain the results, there may well be other things that can also account for them. We can’t even rule out Auger recombination as the dominant mechanism, because the proportion of electrons flowing into the p -type region is still to be quantified.
Each theory has its champions. Theoreticians at Philipps-Universität Marburg support Auger recombination, mainly the phonon-assisted form, as the main cause of droop. So does Semiconductor Technology Research, a device-modeling company based in Richmond, Va. Meanwhile, Hadis Morkoç’s group at Virginia Commonwealth University seconds Schubert’s support of electron leakage, which they attribute to the poor efficiency with which holes are injected into the quantum well.
Confused? Join the club—and realize that this controversy is precisely what you’d expect to find in a field that has suddenly begun to make great progress. Even if we don’t have a universally agreed-upon theory to account for droop, we do have a growing arsenal of proven weapons to fight it—Schubert’s polarization-matched devices, Lumileds’ wide quantum well structures, as well as designs that improve hole injection, among others. Too bad that we still can’t agree on how they work.
The industry will move forward. LEDs are just starting to supplant fluorescent as well as incandescent lighting. Someday, in our lifetimes, incandescent filaments will finally stop turning tens of gigawatts into unwanted heat. Smokestacks will spew less carbon into the global greenhouse. And we won’t have to get up on stepladders to change burned-out bulbs nearly so often as we do today.
And around that time, when you’re reading this magazine by the light of an LED, perhaps the theorists will have watertight explanations for the experimentalists, and we’ll know the answer to the burning question that remains: What causes droop?
About the Author
Richard Stevenson, author of ”The LED’s Dark Secret” [p. 22], got a Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge, where he studied compound semiconductors. Then he went into industry and made the things. Now, as a freelance journalist based in Wales, he writes about them. Between assignments, he builds traditional class A hi-fi amplifiers, as opposed to the class D type favored by IEEE Spectrum’s Glenn Zorpette. ”If we were to share an office,” Stevenson says, ”many hours would be lost to discussions of the path to hi-fi nirvana.”
To Probe Further
The Philips Lumileds papers are “Auger Recombination in InGaN Measured by Photoluminescence,” by Y. C. Shen, G. O. Mueller, S. Watanabe, N. F. Gardner, A. Munkholm, and M. R. Krames, Applied Physics Letters 91 141101, 1 October 2007, and “Blue-Emitting InGaN–GaN Double-Heterostructure Light-Emitting Diodes Reaching Maximum Quantum Efficiency Above 200 A/cm2,” by N. F. Gardner, G. O. Müller, Y. C. Shen, G. Chen, S. Watanabe, W. Götz, and M. R. Krames, APL 91 243506, 12 December 2007.
The papers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are “Origin of Efficiency Droop in GaN-Based Light-Emitting Diodes,” by M.-H. Kim, M. F. Schubert, Q. Dai, J. K. Kim, and E. Fred Schubert, J. Piprek, APL 91 183507, 30 October 2007; “Effect of Dislocation Density on Efficiency Droop in GaInN/GaN Light-Emitting Diodes,” by M. F. Schubert, S. Chhajed, J. K. Kim, and E. Fred Schubert, D. D. Koleske, M. H. Crawford, S. R. Lee, A. J. Fischer, G. Thaler, and M. A. Banas, APL 91 231114, 7 December 2007; and “Polarization-Matched GaInN/AlGaInN Multi-Quantum-Well Light-Emitting Diodes With Reduced Efficiency Droop,” by M. F. Schubert, J. Xu, J. K. Kim, E. F. Schubert, M.-H. Kim, S. Yoon, S. M. Lee, C. Sone, T. Sakong, and Y. Park, APL 93 041102, 28 July 2008.
The paper from Jorg Hader, et al., is “On the Importance of Radiative and Auger Losses in GaN-Based Quantum Wells, APL 92 261103, 1 July 2008.
The paper from Virginia Commonwealth University is “On the Efficiency Droop in InGaN Multiple-Quantum-Well Blue-Light-Emitting Diodes and Its Reduction with p-Doped Quantum-Well Barriers,” by J. Xie, X. Ni, Q. Fan, R. Shimada, Ü. Özgür, and H. Morkoç, APL 93 121107, 23 September 2008.
Bandingkan spectrum masing2 sumber cahaya yg disamapikan disini:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/led-vs-cfl-bulbs-color-temp-light-spectrum-and-more
LED vs CFL Bulbs: Color Temp, light spectrum, and more
By Geoffrey Morrison • Posted: May 6, 2013
This is one of the nerdier posts I've done, but since I'm unabashedly a nerd, and I hope many of you are too, I figured it would work.
You see, I love LEDs. I think they're fascinating in how they work, what they can do, and so on. As you'd expect, I'm slowly replacing the CFL bulbs in my house with LEDs.
The thing is, not all LED bulbs are equal, and one of the biggest drawbacks is that not all offer the "warmth" in color temperature most of us love in incandescents. So I put a few different LEDs on my test bench, measuring them sort of how I measure TVs, to see how they do.
Curious? Well I was, hopefully you will be too.
First, my methodology. In theory, the way to measure an LED or CFL bulb is to measure it directly. As in, aim the meter right at the bulb. Since the Photo Research PR-650 I use is my PR-650 (not S+V's) I didn't want to throw that many photons at it. It would probably have been fine, but like staring at the sun, it's not something I want to do every day.
So instead, I measured what the bulbs produced as reflected off a white reference. This certainly wouldn't give us perfect numbers, but within the logic of this article, the numbers would at least be roughly comparable. I waited for the bulb's color temp to stabilize before I measured it.
In addition to color temp I measured all the bulbs' light spectra using CalMan. The Philips Hue, for instance, obviously creates "white" in a far different way than an inexpensive "regular" LED bulb.
Amazingly, long forgotten in the bottom of a box appropriately labeled "Light Bulbs," I found an ancient, but still in its package, incandescent. Let's start with that.
(Oh, and these are in anti-clockwise order in the image at the top)
Philips Appliance "Frost" (25 Watt, incandescent)
Color Temp: 2488K
As you can see, even though the bulb was labeled "Frost," it's got a very warm color temperature. To my eyes (and mental well-being), I prefer warm light. This, I think, is a cultural thing. In other countries I've visited, they prefer a much cooler (bluer) light. The spectrum isn't surprising either, given it's just a filament heated with electricity.
Philips "Twister" (9W, compact fluorescent)
Color Temp: 2750 kelvin
This is a small CFL, and produces a claimed "2700K." Most new bulbs list a rough color temperature, beyond the "Soft White" or "Bright White" labels. Seems pretty spot on. The spectrum sure is interesting, isn't it? What is "white" anyway?
I also measured a 23W version of this lamp, and it measured 2704K.
GE "Helical" (10W, compact fluorescent)
Color Temp: 2777K
More of the same here. The spectrum looked the same as well.
Bright Effects "L13T6" (13W, compact fluorescent)
Color Temp: 2763K
The house brand for Lowes. This one was labeled "27K." Maybe they meant "2.7kK." I tested a higher wattage version, and it too measured the same. Seems like after enough years of development, these bulbs are spot on what they claim to be. One oddball, then on to the LEDs.
Feit Electric "BPESL 13T/R" (13W, compact fluorescent)
Color Temp: N/A
This is a party CFL. Can you guess what color? I was just curious what the spectrum would look like.
Philips LED A19 (8W, LED)
Color Temp: 2666K
These are $20 each at Home Depot. A19 is the size, but there's no other "name." These were one of (if not the) first mass market LED bulbs. They're labeled 2700K, and they nail that. The "yellow plastic" covering is actually why the spectrum looks the way it does. There's no such thing as a "white" LED. Instead, to create a white light, a blue LED is used (notice the spike in the blue part of the spectrum), and a yellow phosphor is used to fill in the rest (the big hump).
Subjectively, even though the color temp is the same, the quality of the light is different. It's more... natural or something. It's hard to describe, but even though the CFL and the LED are both the same shade of "white," there's something about the CFL that just looks like artificial lighting, while the LED just looks more like "light." Beyond the energy savings, I think I'm going to accelerate my replacement of CFLs just because the LEDs look better. That's not something I really noticed until I did these back to back. I also measured the top-firing version, and it was identical (save its dispersion pattern, obviously)
If only they were cheaper. Oh wait...
Cree A19 (6W, LED)
Color Temp: 2764K
These are brand new, and only $10 each at Home Depot (less in bulk). They're not quite as warm as the Philips, but they're really close and half the price. I've bought a bunch. These are also labeled 2700K. I measured the 9.5W version and it was nearly identical.
Philips Hue (8.5W, LED)
Color Temp: 2748
I reviewed the Hue a few months ago. It's a cool idea: programmable LED bulbs, with an smartphone/tablet app to control them. The reality somewhat misses the mark. The bulbs, though, are fantastic. In their "base" state, as in what they do if you just turn them on, is a lovely warm glow. But as you can see from the spectrum, how they create "white" is very different than the other LED bulbs. Because the Hue has to be able to create all the colors of the rainbow, there are (presumably) red, green, and blue LEDs inside the translucent casing. The internal processor has a preset that says X amount of red, green, and blue are needed to create 2700K. Since there aren't three distinct peaks, there's probably something additional going on.
Orange Tree Trade Soft White LED Rope Light (multiple LED)
Color Temp: 2870
They claim "2800K to 3000K." Honestly, it seems cooler than 2870. A difference of 150K compared to the others here doesn't (and shouldn't be) a big difference, and maybe it's just my eye, but I was all ready to complain about how blue these are and... well not so much I guess.
The same with the next one.
SuperBrightLED.com "G9-xW24" (N/AW, LED)
Color Temp: 2815K
I bought some cool hanging track lighting that came with halogen bulbs. Halogens are about as efficient as running an air conditioner backwards to cool the yard. No way. There were very few options available for the small G9 connector. SuperBrightLEDs.com sold this model, listed as "Warm White" 2900-3200K. These look cooler than the numbers suggest too.
Compared to the Philips LED, these and the Rope Lights are definitely cooler, but compared to the other bulbs here, they're in the ballpark. If you were to put these and the Philips side by side, you'd undoubtedly see a difference.
Though I didn't have any on hand to measure, "white" Christmas lights are often very cool in color temp. Whether this is by design or by necessity remains to be seen. The phosphor in "white" LEDs adds to the cost, generally speaking cheap "white" LEDs are going to be cooler/bluer in color temperature. This goes for any time of "white" LED.
Bottom Line
Turns out, the color temp rating on light bulbs is a lot more accurate than the numbers supplied by any TV company about their products. I figured this was certainly worth checking, though, and maybe it's just me, but I found the different spectra, and how each creates "white," to be really interesting.
I guess I'll end with a word of caution. There's enough variation between the different companies, even if it's only 100-150 kelvin, that if you want a uniform color temperature for the lighting in your home, you're probably better off sticking with one brand, and ideally, the same batch and bulb size.
Jadi melihat suatau peralatan bukan mengikuti mode tetapi bagaimana sang peralatan bisa membantu kit dg meminimalis problema yg bisa ditimbulkan.
Salam,
Saya mendapat info ini dari teman saya mohon konfirmasi/penjelasan dr dokter apakah hal ini benar ? Terima kasih dok
INFO PENTING... Memakai hp di tempat yang gelap, mudah kehilangan penglihatan. Terutama orang yang biasa surf internet sebelum tidur, akan menjadi masalah yang besar. Semakin hari semakin banyak pasien yang berumur yang datang berobat, yang disebabkan oleh kebiasaan memakai"smart phone" di kamar tidur setelah mematikan lampu.Cahaya hp yang terang yg masuk ke mata melebihi 30menit, akan menyebabkan kerusakan pada bagian macula lutea (bagian dr retina), yang beresiko pd penurunan penglihatan yang drastis, terutama penyakit pada macula lutea yang tidak dapat disembuhkan. Bila macula lutea rusak, maka hanya tinggal waktu akan terkena kanker mata, menunggu saat menjadi buta, karena ilmu kedokteran skrg masih belum sanggup utk mengobati penyakit tsb.Setelah lampu ruangan dipadamkan, cahaya pada layar hp sangatlah terang, melihat hp dalam jarak dekat, cahaya dgn intensitas tinggi masuk kedalam mata, langsung merusak macula lutea. Gejala penyakit macula lutea umumnya terdapat pada org tua, tetapi belakangan ini terdapat pasien yang berusia muda (anak2/remaja). Diantaranya kebanyakan pasien tsb merupakan pemakai smart phone dgn intensitas tinggi. Bukan hanya kerusakan pada macula lutea, pada awalnya bisa menyebabkan mata kering, katarak, kerusakan penglihatan, kemudian menjadi buta. Pada tahap awal, pasien harus dilaser atau disuntik steroid, baru bisa sembuh. Disarankan, selain minum supplemen lutein, lebih penting adalah menghilangkan kebiasaan buruk memakai hp. Dikarenakan sebelum tidur, tidak dapat menahan diri utk tdk memakai hp, maka menyebabkan akibat yg mengerikan seumur hidup... JANGAN DIABAIKAN PESAN PENTING INI BUAT KITA DAN TERUTAMA BUAT PENGLIHATAN ANAK2 KITA..!! bc info ini...<3<3
-- We care human as human not as sickness object –
"Absolutely Drug less Health Care solution Organization"
Posted by: "Dr.(Naturopathy) Ir. Donny Hosea MBA. PhD. Acs" <puyuh23@indo.net.id>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar