Talk:Electroluminescence

message: I've rewritten the article, but am puzzled by one claim made by it. Are LEDs really considered to be electroluminescent devices? I'd only heard the term used for phosphor-style EL compounds in the past (though I may just have missed existing semiconductor references). --Christopher Thomas 07:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LEDs are technically EL devices.  However, in common use, EL usually refers to an electroluminescent phosphor.  EL phosphors (and the use of EL to refer to them) were used long before the LED had been invented. Chris01720 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEDs really considered to be electroluminescent devices? 

message: We need figures for voltage, current, watts, lumens, and lumens per watt for typical non-semiconductor EL.-69.87.203.48 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency 

message: Is phosphorescence ("glow-in-the-dark") considered to fall under electroluminescence?Chris01720 (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, phosphorscence is a form of Photoluminescence  —Preceding comment added by Regmark15 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphorescence 

message: The article says EL panels "require relatively high voltage."  Instead of a vague term like "relatively high,"  it would be helpful to give concrete examples of exactly how much voltage is required. (32 V?  180 V?) 71.221.115.185 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: High voltage

message: The article contains an undefined acronym, "IP."  Please add a definition. 71.221.115.185 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed both of these, and linked the Apollo computer.  I just love specific comments on articles, thanks! --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Undefined acronym

message: My light bulb is giving out a dangerous amount of luminescence. Help?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athomasm (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luminescence 

message: This article is written like a history book. How does electroluminescence work at the band diagram level? How do fabrication details affect device behavior?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.179.101 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy on history, light on science 

message: Light-emitting capacitor is a stub definition and could usefully be merged to this more comprehensive article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Light-emitting capacitor]]

message: Even the article on LED describes it as electroluminescent, yet it is not mentioned even once here. Is there some sort of difference between how LEDs work and electroluminescence? If so, it should be explained. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... are LEDs not Electroluminescent? 

message: I'm assuming the 1938 patent that was mentioned was Patent US2239887. That does use electroluminescence, but not in a way that resembles the panels "still made as night lights and backlights". The 1938 patent wasn't for a continuously-on display, and it wasn't suitable for a modern flat display. (Correct me if I'm misreading the patent). Rather, it operated in three phases:
# Apply a charge across an array of phosphors (each representing one pixel). This is done while a shutter is blocking the view of the screen.
# Use a moving cathode ray to selectively excite or discharge some of the phosphors. View of screen still blocked.
# Open the shutter to allow the image to be viewed.
# Repeat to display the next image on the screen.
The earliest patent I could find that would have been suitable for a flat nightlight was US2624857, filed in 1949.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABehrens (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1938 Patent Comment 

message: There was a citation that EL panels produce "6 lumens per watt". This is clearly a bogus claim considering that multiple other sources indicate a typical EL nightlight consumes less than 1/10 of a watt. By that number the nightlight would produce less than half of one lumen which is obviously absurd. That would also be a worse efficiency than incandescent bulbs and makes no sense in conjunction with the surrounding statements about advertisers using it for billboards due to low power. The "source" for this linked to some random tech site with no sources of its own. Interestingly, said website has its own Wikipedia page which reads suspiciously like an ad brochure. -- 100.0.4.149 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. The efficiency is probably at least ten times that high, perhaps 60- 80 lumens per watt.
If a device produces 6 lumens per watt and it uses 1/10 of a watt, then the device would produce only .6 lumens.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-Electroluminescent-Night-Light-2-Pack-54341/202454526
says the EL the panel produces 1-2 lumens.
If this uses .03 watts like many EL night lights, then this would be 30-60 lumens/watt.
http://www.nolico.com/saveenergy/night_lights.htm
says that the device uses .05 watts and is 4 lumens, so this would be 80 lumens/watt. MathPerson (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lumens-per-watt" 

message: Thick-film dielectric electroluminescent technology has little content and could be merged here as no more than a short paragraph, with only a one-line mention of the wound-up company. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any disagreement with this idea. I think you're clear to proceed with the merge. Joyous! | Talk 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from August 2022