New Light Source Lasts 15 Years Without a Recharge

[Ichingcarpenter]

How about a glowing light source that lasts for 15 years instead of the typical 15 minutes of a glowstick? GlowPaint’s newest product does just that and is also non-toxic and inexpensive and doesn’t require a recharge via solar or electrical sources for its entire lifespan. According to the company, “This has potential to save billions in energy costs world-wide. Litroenergy™ surpasses all known available lighting options for cost/durability/reliability and safety.” Their products are expected to be used to replace other forms of safety, emergency and novelty lighting duties normally performed by glow sticks, LEDs and other light sources.







“The Litrospheres are not effected by heat or cold, and are 5,000-pound crush resistant. They can be injection molded or added to paint. The fill rate of Litroenergy micro particles in plastic injection molding material or paint is about 20%. The constant light gives off no U.V. rays, and can be designed to emit almost any color of light desired.”

http://ecoble.com/2007/12/11/new-light-source-lasts-15-years-without-a-recharge/



Don't know much about this product but plan on looking deeper into it.

[stop the bleeding]

1. This looks very interesting

Can't wait to see more info on this

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. It won the NASA prize more info here -looks like production starts in 2009

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MPK_Co%27s_Litroenergy

[DJ13]

2. Your article is over a year old, so where is this miracle?

It seems it should have already made it into some products by now.

[drm604]

4. From their patent application.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0200074.html

This invention relates to a means for more efficiently and more safely providing self-luminous lighting devices for use in signs, markers, indicators and the like. The present invention provides self luminosity by means of a plurality of glass or polymer microspheres containing both a light-emitting phosphor and a radioactive gas. The “soft” emission of electrons from the beta emitting gas cannot penetrate the glass or polymer wall of the microspheres, thereby constituting no radiation hazard. A further advantage of the present invention is that the plurality of individual containment microspheres minimizes the escape of radioactive gas in the event of any physical damage to an assembly of such microspheres. A still further advantage of the invention is that the radioactive gas completely surrounds the phosphor particles, thus causing light emission from one hundred percent of the surface of the particles.

This doesn't sound very "green" to me.

[TheWraith]

8. I thought that it sounded a lot like Tritium betalights.

Similar things are actually in widespread use for things like emergency lighting. The difference here is their claim of being able to micro-scale it and use it as a paint, etcetera.

The big problem, though, is that it's not like we produce massive surpluses of tritium. Current commercial demand is something like 2 pounds a year.

[gristy]

5. Wow. Makes me want to write a patent that combines this perpetual light source with photovoltaics!

Electricity too cheap to meter!! :rofl:

[formercia]

6. It uses Tritium

Burn that material and get Tritiated water which can be metabolized and cause havoc.

Fighting a fire of this material would be similar to one where a thermonuclear weapon is burning.

This is similar to the technology that uses Tritium in gun sights and watches.

Increasing the background level of Tritium in the atmosphere can cause problems with identifying sources of nuclear weapons production.

[TheWraith]

9. You've got a couple gross exaggerations there.

"Burn that material and get Tritiated water which can be metabolized and cause havoc."

Only in massive quantity. Even the WHO restrictions on tritium in water, which are about as lose as you get in the west, you're talking about 54 millirem per year.

"Fighting a fire of this material would be similar to one where a thermonuclear weapon is burning."

No. Not even close. You're talking about a small quanity of beta-emitting gas versus a large load of fissionable material. All the tritium production in the world for a year masses less--a lot less--than the fissionable material in one warhead. Realistically, it wouldn't be any more or less dangerous than a regular petrochemical-fed fire.

[Jane Austin]

7. That's fascinating.

Thanks for sharing it.

[Wednesdays]

10. K and R nt

[DCKit]

11. Is that how the Mormons put the "magic" in their underwear? n/t