Talk:Electrodeless lamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For induction lamps with integrated ballast, the lifespan is in the 15,000 to 50,000 hours range." Is this out of date? It's now 2011 and I have not found any commercially available bulbs that still claim to have such extended lifespans. 98.194.252.13 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Macossay


As others have noted I doubt the accuracy of lumping the sulfur lamp in with inductive lighting [1]....

You'll need to do more than "doubt" this to contest it. A reference or a fact from the outside that supports your argument would be helpful. For now, I'm in agreement with the editor who collected these two articles together and I'm going to remove your "disputed" (etc.) tags from the article.
Atlant 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My search of the web seems to indicate that the term "induction lighting" applies only to fluorescent bulbs. [2] and [3]. These articles discuss both technologies, but don't describe sulfur lamps with the term "induction". And sulfur lamps are NOT fluorescent. The opening line of this article states: "Induction lighting or inductive lighting is a means of fluorescent lighting". Both technologies are electrodeless and make use of microwaves, but the light-generating parts are completely different. It seems to me the two technologies should be kept separate unless you can find a reference where "induction lighting" is used to describe sulfur lamps. SDC 13:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not think the edits satisfy the concerns SDC and I share about the article's accuracy. S lamps ARE NOT INDUCTUVE. They are merely a bulb filled with a little S and Ar gas which is irradiated by microwaves from a magnetron. The plasma does not act as the "second loop" in a transformer as does the plasma in the induction lamp. Further, how do induction lamps produce high power 2.5GHz radiation as claimed in the article WITHOUT using a magnetron?!
By golly, I guess you didn't search hard enough. Two minutes with Google produced this site:
http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_rf_lighting_tunes/
There you will find an article that roughly parallels ours. Frankly, the only beef I think you have is the frequency used to excite the fluorescent lamps and I too wondered about this. I'm going to change our article to use the frequencies cited on the Google page and once again remove your "disputed" tags.
I get the feeling you're really arguing about something else entirely. Are you just disappointed that the Sulfur lamp article was merged here? If so, argue that point explicitly. Are you arguing that the title of the article ought to be "RF lamp"? If so, argue that point. I might even agree with you. But these two families have enough similarities that I still think merging them into one article (no matter what its name) is still a good idea.
Atlant 18:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm arguing about serious errors in the article and nothing more. The corrections you have made greatly improve it. But I still have to disagree, and the article you cite just proves my point. Read it carefully. In that article, the other systems are referred to as induction lamps, but NOT sulfur lamps. Therefore, your article supports my point that sulfur lamps are not correctly described as induction lamps. (I guess you didn't search hard enough. And let that be enough of the nasty comments; they have no place here. If you can find a reference where sulfur lamps are labeled as induction lamps, please point it out.) You could rename the article RF lighting and that would be accurate. But it seems to me that we ought to consider what's most important about lighting, i.e., the light and the things that do the actual light generation. The quality of the light is what the end user sees. That should be our primary sort. In that case, Genura and QL are most importantly fluorescent lamps. Sulfur lamps are in a category of their own. From what I understand, induction lighting takes its name, because a current is induced in mercury vapor lamps. (Electricity isn't my strong suit.) Sulfur lamps use RF in a very different way. So I propose that we sort lamps firstly based on the light. Induction lamps can be included with fluorescent, since the light-generating part of both is the same. Separately, how about having an article on RF lighting and state that the desire to use RF is to replace the cathodes which wear out? Then list all the ways that RF is being used to generate light. That is worthy of its own article. Is this a compromise we can all live with? And do you agree with my point that sulfur lamps can be described as "RF lamps" but not "RF induction lamps"? SDC 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Atlant, please stop removing the dispute tag while we are having exactly that, here on this page. Once we work this out we should remove it, not until then. Also, a little less attitude would be greatly appreciated. I mean we're talking about sulfur lamps here, not abortion or something. I have read the article you cite and fully concur with the above assessment of SDC. Renaming the article to RF lighting and having 2 (or more) sections would be suitable here.--Deglr6328 21:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid neither of you understand electromagnetic induction or Maxwell's equations very well; if you did, we wouldn't be having this debate. The phosphor-based lamp and the sulfur lamp operate by essentially the same principle; it's just that the difference in operating frequency makes them seem different. But you never have an electric wave without a magnetic wave coming right along with it andvice-versa. Also, you could consider either the low-frequency signal (that excites the phosphor-based lamp) or the microwave signal (that excites the sulfur lamp) as a stream of photons; they simply differ in wavelength (energy).
In both cases, a plasma is formed inside the gas discharge tube; in one ase, it's ionized mercury radiating short-wave UV light; in the other case, it's ionized sulfur radiating visible light. Again, the sulphur lamp is operating at much higher energy densities, but there's no big difference in theory of operation. If you looked hard enough, you'd find circulating currents in the sulfur lamp plasma too.
Atlant 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why are you being so condescending? Not very nice. I think there IS a difference in the theory of operation! In the conventional induction lamp design which operates in the KHz or MHz range the plasma is fully within the nearfield of the RF radiator, in the S lamp the source of radiation is in the GHz range and this is certainly no longer true. The S lamp is fundamentally different.--Deglr6328 23:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deglr, can you explain this in more detail to me? As I've stated, I'm not schooled in this area, so I'm trying to get up to speed. Tell me if this is correct: The term "induction" refers to an induced electrical current inside the mercury vapor lamp. The current is caused by a magnetic field emanating from an induction coil. A magnetic field is created by electricity flowing in a coil, similar to an electromagnet. Is this correct? From what I have read about sulfur lamps, radio waves excites the argon gas which heats the sulfur in the bulb. Is this right? And does that mean that the sulfur is incandescing? If that is not the correct term, what is? Also, what do you make of the article I cited below which explicity states that induction is not involved in the sulfur lamp? Thanks. SDC 23:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that's all pretty much correct. Except for the incandescence bit. The method of light production in the S lamp is really like no other. It uses the molecular electronic transitions of the S2 dimer while under high pressure (~5 atm.) and this results in something like 106 overlapping emission lines. The induction method used to form low pressure Hg plasmas in fluorescent tubes is just incapable of delivering the power densities S lamps need, I suspect they'd simply melt themselves from the heat produced. IANAP so I can't really explain it in the detail you are looking for. However, this [4] doctoral thesis done by some guy in the Netherlands lays everything out in EXCRUCIATING detail...--Deglr6328 05:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Atlant, my education does not include electromagnetic induction, so I won't debate you on that point. But you still haven't addressed my other concerns. As I stated before, it seems to me that the light-generating part of the system should be of primary importance here. Bulbs like Genura are most importantly fluorescent bulbs, and that is what the general public will see. People complain about the color of fluorescent bulbs, they don't complain about the electrodes. So it seems odd to me to remove fluorescent induction lamps from the article on fluorescent lighting and lump them in with sulfur lamps, which to the outside observer will seem very different. I've seen both types of lighting--they are easily distinguished apart. The distinction of using RF rather than an electric current is a significant one, but it seems secondary to the actual light-generating part. So why not group fluorescent induction lamps with fluorescent lights and then a separate article on RF Lighting? SDC 23:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear readers[edit]

I have originally written the article on induction lamps as addition to fluorescent lamps. For some reason somebody has removed this item from fluorescent lamps and placed it at its current position. Induction lighting can in theory be combined with any gas discharge lighting technique be it fluorescent, sulfur, HID or whatever. RF lighting would not be a good title, since you could as well power a lamp with electrodes with RF power. So another possible title could be electrodeless lamps. The fact that I originally described the operation of the fluorescent lamps, as "a second turn in a transformer" does not inhibit other induction principles that work in another way. The fact that users of lamps are only interested in the quality of light is no argument for the classification of lamps, they are classified based on their physical operating principles. Considering these facts, a logical solution could be to leave things as they are now, and to create links from all the relevant other lighting articles (i.e. from fluorescent lighting, this works and is available on the market), and any relevant other known (future, researched, or available) technique for induction lighting.

The introduction of the article also states luminicence as the general exciting mechanism in electrodeless lamps. Exciting S2 in order to let it emitting visible light is as far as I know not included in the definition of luminincence, it reminds me more on the direct radiation principles underlying the operation of HID lamps.

So, as fas as I see it,what remains is that electrodeless lamps recieve their power by coupling of a magnetic or electromagnetic power source, external of the lamp. All the rest is different.

May be the introduction should state that electrodeless lamps receive power etc... Due to the absence of electrodes such lamps can have a very long service life,because in most lamps the electrodes are the lige limiting parts.


I am a registered Dutch contributor, not registered for English Wikipedia. Gerben Hoeksma 28-6-2005 aa

Dear Gerben,

I'm glad to have your input in this debate. I'll respond more later when I have time. It seems to me the evidence is overwhelming that it not appropriate to refer to sulfur lamps as induction lamps, and as such, this article should be split up. I disagree entirely with the merging of these two articles. I do think we need an article discussing electrodeless technology or RF lighting, but this article is not accurate. As I've stated before, electromagnetic induction is not involved in sulfur lamps, and I can find no reference to state that it does. And the one reference below states clearly that sulfur lamps are not induction lamps. SDC 29 June 2005 14:10 (UTC)

International Association of Energy Efficient Lighting[edit]

I would direct you to the IAEEL's newletter of February 1997, which states:

...Fusion Lighting's electrodeless sulfur lamp is not a fluorescent lamp, nor does it use induction to generate light [5]

Requested move[edit]

Inductive lightingElectrodeless lamp - the talk page discussion reveals that electrodeless lampis the correct common title for this page The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerben49 (talk • contribs) 30 June 2005, 21:07 (UTC).

  • Support Gerben49 08:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A common man understands least about these discussions (which is for technologists) - on whether to call it induction lamp or electrodeless lamp. Many asked me - how does it work , if there are no electrodes? Actually there are two wires powering the electronics. There are no wires connected to the glass shell emitting light. Why not call it WIREFREE lamp as distinctly different from wireless(people would get confused with radio frequency= wireless). Regards Divekar M S, Bangalore, India

I ahve been going through this discussion and articles on electrodeless lamps. GE and Philips sem to be operating at Very High Frequencies of the order of MHz, while OSRAM's Endura operates at 250Khz. How has this been achieved? What kind of gas mixtures and pressue levels have been used- can somebody enlighten please? Divekar M S

This is one of the worst Wikipedia Pages I have seen.[edit]

This page falls appallingly short of the quality I have to come to expect when reading a Wikipedia entry.

There are inconsistencies, weird wording, hints of arguments underlying the editing and general 3rd rate writing throughout.

There is simply to much to list item by item. It should be apparent.

The 'Disadvantages' section is particularly bad. The grammar is atrocious. The language and tone are far too informal. Much of what the 'Disadvantages' section lists directly contradicts what is found in the 'Advantages' section.

It feels like a drunk narrator is giving me a play by play rundown of a 'Yuh huh! Is too! vs. Unh uha! No it is not!' match.

. This page is an embarrassment. It should be rewritten from scratch or simply put out of its misery.

70.185.104.164 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC) BGRIFFIN

I reverted the most recent edits to the disadvantages section. If the individual who made these edits would like to add them again, I strongly encourage him or her to find citations for the claims and proofread the text. OmegaPaladin (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I Plan to Rewrite the Induction Lamp Section[edit]

There are major errors in the discussion of induction lamps. In an external core induction lamp using toroidal ferrite cores the magnetic field is almost entirely contained in the ferrite core. The magnetic filed does not penetrate the discharge tube, and does not need to! Based on Faraday's Law, a voltage is generated in any closed path that encloses a time varying magnetic field. That is how the electric filed is generated in an induction lamp even though the magnetic filed never enters the discharge space. Once the electric field is generated, the induction amps works like any other lamp in that the discharge is driven by the ELECTRIC field. I also plan to replace the drawing of the external core induction lamp because it shows the magnetic filed incorrectly.

By the way, both fluorescent and metal halide induction lamps have been demonstrated, though the metal halide induction lamps has not been commercialized. (I have patents for both types.) I also worked with Fusion Lighting on the their Sulfur lamps, and agree that sulfur lamps, at least as used by Fusion, are NOT induction lamps. They are a class on electrodeless lamps, but not induction, which is a sub-class of electrodeless.

Vdroberts (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)vdrobertsVdroberts (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Electrodeless lamp. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Electrodeless lamp. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

CRI and K*?[edit]

   Did I miss them?