Comments on: Luxim’s Plasma Arc LIFI lighting demoed at Monterey Bay Aquarium

By: Plasma Design Theory -

Plasma Design Theory - — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:18:11 +0000

[...] [...]

By: OLED lighting - 3reef Forums

OLED lighting - 3reef Forums — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:37:36 +0000

[...] 140 lumens per watt and a CRI (color rendering index) of 96 so it means almost perfect sunlight. Luxim’s Plasma Arc LIFI lighting demoed at Monterey Bay Aquarium | Reef Builders Plasma Arc LIFI lighting already in use at the Monterey Bay Aquarium | Reef Builders Aqua [...]

By: My new toy from Aqua Illuminations - Page 7 - Reef 2 Reef

My new toy from Aqua Illuminations - Page 7 - Reef 2 Reef — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:25:42 +0000

[...] Those of you following this might find this interesting: Luxim’s Plasma Arc LIFI lighting demoed at Monterey Bay Aquarium | Reef Builders [...]

By: Bill Pearson

Bill Pearson — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:33:18 +0000

I’ve been following the Luxim technology from the time it replaced all high pressure mercury light sources in over 60,000 Panasonic Rear Projection TVs in early 2007 until now. I’m familiar with the failed Fusion Lighting attempt at plasma lighting. Jon has done a good job of delineating the issues with the sulphur plasma lamps, all of which are resolved by the Luxim LIFI solution:

- Luxim does not use a spinning bulb
- Luxim’s solid state system does not use a magnetron or sulphur
- Luxim’s source is small (the size of a tic tac), directional, and digitally controllable
- Luxim’s current offering is not a 1200W system, but rather their 180W source replaces traditional 400W metal halide sources
- Luxim’s current offering is not a 150 lumens/watt source, but rather 120 lumens/watt source driving 22,000 lumens. It would take 150 high power white LEDs to deliver the same output. Luxim’s product roadmap does not show LEDs overtaking Luxim on either lumens/watt lumens/cent.
- Luxim’s color temp = 5500K, at a rather impressive CRI of 95
- No cooling fans are required

By: jake adams

jake adams — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:40:01 +0000

Jon, only you would find room to dog on the Plasma Arc lighting. You’ll be eating your words about LIFI much sooner than you think my friend.

By: Jon 'hahnmeister'

Jon 'hahnmeister' — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:09:55 +0000

If they were interested, I could put it through the whole grid test to find its efficiency (incidental light across a plane)… but it seems they want $1000 to do this.

By: Jon 'hahnmeister'

Jon 'hahnmeister' — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:08:25 +0000

This would have been a great technology about 10 years ago when sulphur induction hit a wall… but I doubt it will go far. At best, that technology gets about 150 lumens/watt, and thats with those massive 1200 watt versions. Smaller ones get less and less efficient. By the time this technology matures to market, Im sure LED’s will overtake them and make them quite pointless. Induction is a great step up from electrode based lighting from the longevity standpoint, but the efficiency is capped by the magnetron and sulphur gas… no way around that… and thats where a diode, or solid state emitter overtakes it. Not to mention… the major downfall of plasma back in the 90’s was the delivery system… even though much of that has been eliminated and made better (cooling fans and mounting the bulb on a spinning shaft was needed to prevent cracking the bulb), you still have a bulb that puts out light in all directions… for our applications at least, the unidirectional and controlled output of a LED means a huge efficiency advantage.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:04:09 +0000

WOW! Thanks Jake! I wish I had the patent on this. So what is the energy expenditure on these bulbs? Has anyone looked at PAR values?