3 ms·
A 1000 hour life span was a reasonable trade-off between longevity and power efficiency. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY https://www.youtube.co
by cubefox 2y ago
A 1000 hour life span was a reasonable trade-off between longevity and power efficiency.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
- Thorrez 2y agoIf the goal of the fine was to make sure power efficiency was good, they should have made a fine for having bad power efficiency, not a fine for lasting too long.
- viraptor 2y agoAt the time there was one way to make the usual commercial lightbulb and the only one the group was regulating. I don't think it would make any difference even if the threshold was lazy / technically wrong.
- Thorrez 2y agoI would think there would be a lot of variables that could be tweaked, such as shape, composition of the filament, gas, glass, filament support parts, thickness of the filament, shape of the filament, temperature that the filament was treated at.
- Workaccount2 2y agoThe fine was in industry speak because it was only for industry. This is a chronic problem where commoners read stuff they don't actually understand, but think they do, and then completely freak out about it.
- alanbernstein 2y agoIt sounds more like the chronic problem where rules are written without thinking very much about unintended consequences.
- Thorrez 2y ago"Industry speak" sounds like it's just a debate about terminology. But I'm not simply suggesting changing the terminology, I'm suggesting actually measuring something else.
- throwthrowuknow 2y agoHow about explaining that statement?
- exitb 2y agoThe bulbs emit more lumens per watt when the filament runs hotter, but it lowers its expected life span. Using a bulb with a longer life span wouldn't necessarily save you money, as you would need to use more electricity to get the same amount of light.
- petra 2y agoTo What does this wasted electricity turns to, if not heat?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bonzini 2y agoEfficiency is lower in a colder filament because more of the radiation is in the infrared for a given wattage. So you get more heat for an equal amount of visible light. Here is an example with plausible (but not real) numbers. Higher current (hot filament): 1000 lumen, 100 W, 10 lumen/watt, 1000 hour lifetime Lower current (colder filament): 333 lumen, 50 W, 6.66 lumen/watt, 3000 hour lifetime. To emit 1000 lumen for 3000 hours you'll use 3 of the former lightbulbs (one after another) and consume 300 kWh, 100 per lightbulb. And you'll also use 3 of the latter lightbulbs (in parallel) but you'll spend 450 kWh, 150 per lightbulb.
- ssl-3 2y agoHeat. Just heat. Remember, an incandescent light bulb is primarily a heater -- even in the very best case, most of the energy input becomes heat. This heater just happens to be so hot that it glows white and produces usable light.
- calfuris 2y agoAll of the electricity turns to heat in any case. The problem is the nature of incandescence. Incandescent filaments are black-body radiators. The spectrum of black body radiation changes with temperature[1], so filaments that run hotter emit a larger proportion of their energy in the visible spectrum. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Black_body.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Black_bo...