3 ms·
I had known about that, but I never had realized until re-reading that article that it now runs at 4 watts rather than the original 60 watts. I'm still impress
by serf 12y ago
I had known about that, but I never had realized until re-reading that article that it now runs at 4 watts rather than the original 60 watts.
I'm still impressed totally, but I must say that that factor dampened it a bit for me. If planned obsolescence is really non-existent in that industry one wonders how long a modern low-wattage bulb built for endurance could potentially last.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y agoA modern low-wattage bulb built for endurance could potentially last roughly forever. And during that time turn so much electricity into heat that you'd be asking for shorter-lived higher-temperature bulbs to save on energy costs. With normal incandescent lighbulbs, electricity is about 95% of the costs, so if you doubled the lifetime of those bulbs, the most you could save would be about 2.5% of total costs, if the lower operating temperature of long-lasting bulbs didn't increase the electricity needed for the same brightness, which practically means that you probably would pay more overall.
- qwerta 12y ago> A modern low-wattage bulb built for endurance I do not think so. LED on its own sure, but most bulbs also have power converter and other parts prone to failure.
- gambiting 12y agoI think he meant traditional, carbon-filament lightbulb, manufactured to modern standards. If the filament used was thick enough, it would work for hundreds of years, no problem.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 12y agoelectricity is about 95% of the costs Really depends on the application. For difficult-to-change bulbs (in high or remote locations), longevity can be a significant factor. It's one thing to replace the bulb in a table lamp, another on a remote high tower or deep within an industrial plant in a hostile environment. Or on a spacecraft.