Here is yet another example of how broken science has become. The fundamental theoretical concept of this research has merit. The possibility of a practical manufacturing process is remote and the researchers know it.
It's an interesting little project to amuse the scientists and get (you guessed it) funding. If you read the article in https://www.nature.com/nnano/articles you will see all sorts of stylish scientific neologisms and buzz words dressing up the description of the research scattered about. You know, there are terms such as "photonic crystal" and "photonic filter" and lots of nano this and that. Nowhere did I see the words "hot mirror" or "dichroic filter". Don't you wanna know why. That's because these are words to describe things that have been around for a long time and they are exactly what is described in this research. If the scientists used these words, they would get no funding, and they sure as hell wouldn't be published in Nature. Incidentally, when you look up the term "hot mirror", try to avoid looking at the pictures of those hot bikini clad babes looking at themselves in the mirror. On Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 03:42:33 PM GMT+1, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: This story is five years old.Is anyone aware of further progress?https://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds Harry
