It's a very good point, not just on that specific, but the project as a whole. One wonders how many decisions are being affected by the contractor rather than the City itself, as that's the only rationale (contractor judgement) that seems to be applied to a number of aspects, not least the detour maze conundrum on the ground floor of Union.
I have new information. Just spent an hour at Union poking around, asking questions, and weighing possibilities.
There is copper 'trim' on the station. The green is verdigris - essentially copper carbonate. It is why copper roofs eventually turn 'green'.
They did install completely new copper roofs and seem to have put new copper flashing on west wing and I guess they are also doing this on the east wing so it IS rather odd they did not replace any old copper flashing over the 'portico'. too. Maybe they have not finished yet?? (Though eventually new copper will oxidise anyway.)
I see good and bad news in there. Good that they call for three, bad that they're being incredibly blinkered on LEDs. I have to wonder if someone isn't pulling strings on that. Do they want the best lighting or not? They have to be prepared to be surprised by unorthodox results, which probably won't be LEDs, at least was we know them.
I'd agree with the following on *one condition*! The type of lighting not be disclosed, and the judges not know. Is this to be an objective competition or not?
The "Request To Pre-Qualify" clearly states "LEDs". The presumption is astounding, not least that some other source feeding fibre-optics couldn't be far more stunning and *tantalizing* to the eyes, as well as functional. No more oil paintings folks, just photographs, and even there, no saturation or warm tones. Just harsh edges and details.
http://www.treehugger.com/interior-design/luxim-plasma-light-bulb-kicks-some-serious-led-butt.htmlAt 140 lumens/watt, these pill-sized plasma light bulbs by Luxim are a pretty awesome contender for "light of the future". They are almost 10 times more efficient than traditional incandescent light bulbs, twice as efficient as current high-end LEDs, and they also beat CFLs, most of which are around 50-80 lumens/watt. Only the prototype 300 lumens/watt nanocrystal-coated LEDs can hold a candle to them.
And the light from Luxim's LIFI bulb is not ugly either: color rendering index (CRI) is 91. Lifetime for a bulb is estimated at 20,000 hours, and a relatively large amount of power can be pumped through them, allowing a tiny bulb to produce 30,000+ lumens (not something LEDs can do).
An RF (radio-frequency) signal is generated by the solid-state power amplifier and is guided into an electric field about the bulb. The high concentration of energy in the electric field vaporizes the contents of the bulb to a plasma state at the bulb's center; this controlled plasma generates an intense source of light.
Luxim seems to want to use them in projectors, but since even a tiny light bulb can produce as much light as a street lamp, sky seems to be the limit if cost can be brought down.
If you like this article, you can follow me on Twitter (@Michael_GR) and Stumbleupon (THMike). Thanks.
See also: LED vs. CFL: Life-Cycle Study Shows a Close Race, but LED Likely to Take the Lead
::Luxim, ::Tiny Pill-Sized Plasma Bulb is Brighter Than Streetlight, ::Inventors Create Pill-Sized Bulb That's Brighter Than a Street Lamp
http://www.zdnet.com/article/goodbye-leds-hello-plastic-bulbs/Just when LED light bulbs seemed to be gaining traction, along comes a technology that researchers insinuate could trump them: Plastic.
Meet the Fipel - the field-induced polymer electroluminescent light source. According to physicists at Wake Forest University in North Carolina and Trinity College, Dublin, a Fipel requires less energy than a fluorescent bulb does, the BBC reports.
Thus, a Fipel would also be more energy efficient than an LED bulb, since LEDs and fluorescents require about the same amount of electricity. As I wrote last week, LED vendors are struggling in the vast market for commercial office lighting , where buyers are not willing to pay the higher price that manufacturers charge for LEDs, even though LEDs last longer and have other advantages.
The BBC story does not mention any prices for Fipels. But if Fipels represent a significant energy saving over fluorescents, that might induce buyers to spring for them.
Inventor David Carroll, a professor at Wake Forest, says a corporate partner will start producing them next year. Fipels use "three layers of white-emitting polymer that contain a small volume of nanomaterials that glow when electric current is passed through them," according to the BBC.
The Wake Forest team originally wrote about its developments in the journal Organic Lighting.
Bandwidth Analyzer Pack: Your ONE network monitoring and traffic analysis tool
SolarWinds® Bandwidth Analyzer Pack streamlines troubleshooting and consolidates the multiple tools to simplify detection, diagnosis,and resolution. Download the free, fully functional 30-day trial of SolarWinds® Network Bandwidth Analyzer Pack now!
Downloads provided by SolarWinds
WARMING
The BBC explains that Fipel light is warmer than fluorescents. The story does not compare the light quality to LEDs' quality, which many people regard as superior to fluorescent and inferior to the warm but inefficient incandescent bulbs still common in homes.
Carroll notes that whereas "curly cue" fluorescent bulbs emit a harsh bluish light that can cause headaches, the light from his bulb accommodates the human eye because it "can match the solar spectrum perfectly."
That sounds potentially better than LED light quality.
Carroll claims at least four other advantages for Fipels over fluorescents:
Their bendiness would threaten another emerging light technology: OLEDs, or organic light emitting diodes, which are natural materials that emit light in response to an electric current. They are supposed to transform lighting by allowing designers to build them into things like building fabric, support structures, furniture and fashion. Electronics makers also want to use them to create foldable phones, gadgets and TVs.
- they're brighter
- it's easy to adjust their tint
- they do not contain environmentally hazardous mercury
- they are malleable into different shapes
A DECADE AND COUNTING
But OLEDs "don't last very long and they're not very bright," Carroll claims. "There's a limit to how much brightness you can get out of them. If you run too much current through them they melt."
What about longevity compared to LEDs? Light emitting diodes are supposed to last for 25 years or longer (although LED bulb makers provide warranties of only about 7 years). There seems to be no hard figure for the life expectancy of a Fipel, but Carroll says he's had one working in his lab for about 10 years.
Of course, as LED bulb makers know, it's a long way from lab triumphs to market success. It's too early to tell whether people will flip for Fipels. At the least, Prof Carroll is putting pressure on LED companies to continue to improve and lower prices. That should help light the way to a more energy efficient future, regardless of which technology wins.
Photo: Wake Forest University via the BBC.
Watch for my second installment soon on the myth of LED energy savings.
More LEDS and OLEDS on SmartPlanet:
This post was originally published on Smartplanet.com
- The myth of LED energy savings
- More LED truths and half-truths
- When good lights go bad: LED breakdown
- The hot and cold of LED lighting
- Dutch push for flexible gadget screens
- Car’s ‘glass’ roof by day becomes interior light at night. Oh OLEDs!
- Roll up the iPad: Siemens advances the flexible screen
- Video: Watch this Samsung flexible tablet PC unfold
- Eye candy: Glow-in-the-dark surfing
- Samsung eyes flexible gadget screens by early 2012
- Nokia toys with flexible smartphones you can bend and twist [video]
