Sorry I'm late - only just remembered to ask!
When you get a chance, ask him what he thinks/knows about products using electroluminescent panels (e.g. Osram Planon), and if there are any commercial OTS products using them
Because of their low light output, you'd probably only find these panels on TVs or other back-lit applications where a low light output is acceptable. Otherwise they're not much good for lighting up a room or a subject. If you want non-directional lighting you're probably best sticking to diffused fluorescents or a
Barrisol system.
Commercially there isn't anything off the top of his head for normal subject/room lighting.
whether you can get magnetic induction lamps in anything other than the Genura R80 lamp or the Philips QL bulbs
Probably, but why use anything other than a credible manufacturer like Philips/Osram/GE?
and when (if?) he thinks OLED lighting will become available.
They're probably already here! There's a lot of hype with LEDs, and this is just the 'next best thing' waiting to drain your wallet in the name of 'clean' energy and 'long lasting' luminaires.
Ditto what he thinks of the Thorn BaseLED light.
A good luminaire, they irradicate lamp replacement, but they're more expensive to run and offer nothing better performance wise over CFL.
Have a look at the
Thorn brochure for these. It's statistics are a little misleading:
- On page 5, it shows payback after 5 years on CFL. But the expected life of the units is 50,000 hours, or 5.7 years!
- They have based the CFL energy consumption and lumen output on an LOR of 0.54 - no commercial lamp should (and doesn't) have an LOR lower than 0.6!
- The total power consumption of the compared CFL is 24W, so that's a bleeding inefficient switch start ballast in other words!
- On page 2, the Q-PAR16 is quoted as having 'comparable' output of 650 lumens. The Latest OSRAM Q-PAR16 luminaires have an output of 950 lumens with a 50W bulb.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.