Talk:Haitz's law

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haitz's law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]