5 ms·

New lighting technologies like CFL and LED are sold by comparing to incandescent - e.g. "Burns 10x longer than a regular lightbulb!" I wonder how many of those

New lighting technologies like CFL and LED are sold by comparing to incandescent - e.g. "Burns 10x longer than a regular lightbulb!" I wonder how many of those analyses would look if its life wasn't artificially limited in this manner.

andrewla 12y ago
It sounds like the "artificial limitations" described in the article were just a tradeoff -- better quality of light, and more efficiency, at the cost of lifetime of the bulbs and a higher production cost. I'm not sure that this article really gives any evidence to support the so-called "lightbulb conspiracy" even though the tone of the article seems to imply that planned obsolescence was involved.
- vidarh 12y ago
  The article claims production costs dropped. Also, the article claims the limitations were explicitly on number of hours. If they cared about better quality of light, they could have had a similar effect by demanding brightness and efficiency, and let manufacturers produce longer lasting bulbs if they managed to achieve that as well. In terms of evidence, it does not present much, though it references a number of other material, but the article author certainly claims to have seen it. It does however provide this quote from Anton Phillips: “This, you will agree with me, is a very dangerous practice and is having a most detrimental influence on the total turnover of the Phoebus Parties…. After the very strenuous efforts we made to emerge from a period of long life lamps, it is of the greatest importance that we do not sink back into the same mire by paying no attention to voltages and supplying lamps that will have a very prolonged life.”
IshKebab 12y ago
This was in the 1920s. Modern incandescent bulbs aren't sabotaged.
- bdamm 12y ago
  Citation needed.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  Most incandescent bulbs are literally banned in the United States. So it is kinda pointless talking about a product that is no longer on the market.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Been watching fox news again? There is no ban on incandescent light bulbs in the USA and never has there been one nor one proposed. What we do have is a standard of minimum light output per watt, enacted in 2007. This has caused the disappearance of dirt-cheap 60W bulbs which were replaced with 43W bulbs producing the same light.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      The proper way to ban something is to set minimum standards of performance that the thing could never meet.
    - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
      Nope, never been watched Fox News in my life. Just an annoyed customer that when I go to the store I can't find what I would like. And yeah, the proper way to ban something is to set minimum standards of performance that the thing could never meet. That's like Republicans saying "we aren't banning abortion" while creating a series of legislation that makes it extremely hard to impossible to be able to perform abortion. Either way I said "most."

andrewla 12y ago

It sounds like the "artificial limitations" described in the article were just a tradeoff -- better quality of light, and more efficiency, at the cost of lifetime of the bulbs and a higher production cost. I'm not sure that this article really gives any evidence to support the so-called "lightbulb conspiracy" even though the tone of the article seems to imply that planned obsolescence was involved.

vidarh 12y ago
The article claims production costs dropped. Also, the article claims the limitations were explicitly on number of hours. If they cared about better quality of light, they could have had a similar effect by demanding brightness and efficiency, and let manufacturers produce longer lasting bulbs if they managed to achieve that as well. In terms of evidence, it does not present much, though it references a number of other material, but the article author certainly claims to have seen it. It does however provide this quote from Anton Phillips: “This, you will agree with me, is a very dangerous practice and is having a most detrimental influence on the total turnover of the Phoebus Parties…. After the very strenuous efforts we made to emerge from a period of long life lamps, it is of the greatest importance that we do not sink back into the same mire by paying no attention to voltages and supplying lamps that will have a very prolonged life.”

IshKebab 12y ago

This was in the 1920s. Modern incandescent bulbs aren't sabotaged.

bdamm 12y ago
Citation needed.
UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
Most incandescent bulbs are literally banned in the United States. So it is kinda pointless talking about a product that is no longer on the market.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Been watching fox news again? There is no ban on incandescent light bulbs in the USA and never has there been one nor one proposed. What we do have is a standard of minimum light output per watt, enacted in 2007. This has caused the disappearance of dirt-cheap 60W bulbs which were replaced with 43W bulbs producing the same light.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    The proper way to ban something is to set minimum standards of performance that the thing could never meet.
  - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
    Nope, never been watched Fox News in my life. Just an annoyed customer that when I go to the store I can't find what I would like. And yeah, the proper way to ban something is to set minimum standards of performance that the thing could never meet. That's like Republicans saying "we aren't banning abortion" while creating a series of legislation that makes it extremely hard to impossible to be able to perform abortion. Either way I said "most."