Incandescent Bulb comeback?

[Bigbandguy]

Interesting article here, looks like some research is being done on improving the efficiency of the incandescent bulb. By the time those new LED lamps burn out we might all be changing again .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html

 

[gungatim]

there is still an incandescent lightbulb on of Edison's crew made that has been burning non-stop for >100yrs. there is a website somewhere you can see it in real time. GE/Sylvania/Osram conspired to keep the life of the bulbs much shorter than they could be back in the 20's...instead of making a quality long lasting efficient product, they chose to go the commodity route and the rest is history....

 

[rlitman]

It's not a conspiracy. It's simple economics.

Dim an incandescent lightbulb below it's nominal brightness, and the lifetime goes up, while the watts/lumen efficiency drops.

You can change the filament resistance to change the light output and lifetime, but the 1000 hour lifetime bulbs are already pretty well optimized for a smooth surface wire filament.

Those 100+ year old Edison bulbs last so long because they are full size and power bulbs that aren't even putting out the lumens of a night light.
Here's an example (with fictional numbers, just to make the point). Take a European 100W 240V incandescent bulb of a 1000 hour rating and plug it into a 120V socket. You'll probably be drawing around 50W, though your light output will be closer to that of a 15W bulb, and your lifetime may be 5000 hours. When you now have to use a light fixture that has 5 of these bulbs burning 250W instead of one bulb burning 60W, to get the same light output, you'll realize that the cost of replacing bulbs is not significant compared to the cost of the power, and that is why incandescent bulbs have such a short life.

Now take that 100 year old Edison bulb and crank up the voltage on it until its light output matches the already lousy lumens/watts ratio of a modern incandescent bulb. It'll sizzle out in seconds. It simply cannot run at those filament temperatures, because the carbon filament is simply not able to do what a "modern" tungsten filament can.

I'm skeptical of these improvements in incandescent efficiency. The last ones I've read about relied on nano-structures on the filament surface, or laser micro-etching, both to I believe increase filament emissivity. While that would allow the filament to run a little cooler while still putting out the same spectrum (which gives a theoretical increase in both efficiency, and lifetime), I suspect that as this surface texture erodes, the bulb will rapidly convert itself to a standard bulb (so a bulb that started out at the brightness of a 60W bulb will soon only be half that bright).

Sounds like this new concept is using a layer on the glass to keep IR inside. Not really that novel a concept. Halogen bulbs already do that do some extent, and even fully realized, there is no way you could get more than a fraction of the ludicrous efficiency gains claimed.

Additionally, the article is full of misinformation, such as an incandescent bulb's CRI being 100 (it is, but with this sort of filter involved, it would no longer be so), or that the CRI of the best LED and fluorescent bulbs are just 80 (not even close, 80 covers some truly awful ****, 96 is easy to find, and 99+ CRI has been available for many years if you wanted to pay for it).

 

[Bigbandguy]

A friend increased the life of a hard to change incandescent by putting a diode in series with one side of the line feeding it. I do not know the specifics of what he did but that light was beyond 5 years the last time I heard. He moved out of that house and lost track of it after that.

If new research can make incandescent lights somewhat compatible at least we can lose the harsh glare of some of the LED bulbs. We all know that as soon as everyone's lighting is efficient the utility companies will be crying in their beer for increased rates to offset their "revenue loss".

 

[CJ7VFR]

We all know that as soon as everyone's lighting is efficient the utility companies will be crying in their beer for increased rates to offset their "revenue loss".

This is very true!

There are cases coming up now in areas of the country where a lot of homes are putting up solar panels on their roofs to save money on electricity bills where the power companies are asking the government for either increases in the rates they can charge for power, or if they can tack on "user fees" and things like that because the power companies are complaining of lost revenues.

They tell you that you can save the environment and save money by installing things (like LED bulbs or solar panels) to help cut down on your power usage, and then you get hit with add on user fees and hire rates that cost just as much or more than you were paying before you started using energy saving items!

Jim

 

[rlitman]

A friend increased the life of a hard to change incandescent by putting a diode in series with one side of the line feeding it. I do not know the specifics of what he did but that light was beyond 5 years the last time I heard. He moved out of that house and lost track of it after that.

A diode is a half wave rectifier. It will effectively cut half of the voltage waveform . So your 60 watt bulb is now using something like 40 watts (because the change in filament temperature changes the resistance, which changes the current draw), but is emitting less light than a 40 watt bulb.

TINSTAAFL!

However, in the case of a hard to change bulb (as as the practice in traffic lights until the transition to LED), sometimes it makes sense to reduce efficiency to increase longevity. But over the life of that bulb, you may have paid the power company the cost of a very nice Little Giant ladder.

 

[Gerald O]

A friend increased the life of a hard to change incandescent by putting a diode in series with one side of the line feeding it. I do not know the specifics of what he did but that light was beyond 5 years the last time I heard. ..".

The result of that would be that current would flow for only half of the AC cycle, thus cutting the power by half (neglecting change to filament resistance due to running cooler). The bulb would be much dimmer, but might last longer due to running cooler and well below its design rating.

edit: rlitman beat me to the draw...

 

[zmaxmotorsports]

This is very true!

There are cases coming up now in areas of the country where a lot of homes are putting up solar panels on their roofs to save money on electricity bills where the power companies are asking the government for either increases in the rates they can charge for power, or if they can tack on "user fees" and things like that because the power companies are complaining of lost revenues.

They tell you that you can save the environment and save money by installing things (like LED bulbs or solar panels) to help cut down on your power usage, and then you get hit with add on user fees and hire rates that cost just as much or more than you were paying before you started using energy saving items!

Jim

You aint seen nothing yet,just wait till the natural gas co's get a monopoly on things.

 

[zmaxmotorsports]

The result of that would be that current would flow for only half of the AC cycle, thus cutting the power by half (neglecting change to filament resistance due to running cooler). The bulb would be much dimmer, but might last longer due to running cooler and well below its design rating.

edit: rlitman beat me to the draw...

You guys make my head hurt!

 

[rlitman]

You guys make my head hurt!

I try my hardest.

 

[Stuart in MN]

Interesting article here, looks like some research is being done on improving the efficiency of the incandescent bulb. By the time those new LED lamps burn out we might all be changing again .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html

I was reading about this on another forum where some of the members are lighting engineers - as the article points out it's a proof of concept only at this time, whether or not it can be made into something commercially viable is not yet known.

 

[Fishplate]

There are cases coming up now in areas of the country where a lot of homes are putting up solar panels on their roofs to save money on electricity bills where the power companies are asking the government for either increases in the rates they can charge for power, or if they can tack on "user fees" and things like that because the power companies are complaining of lost revenues.

It's not lost revenue. My power company pays me to be more efficient, because that means they need to build less generating capacity (especially for peak times).

But remember: You need the same infrastructure - poles and wires to houses - no matter what the efficiency. Put up enough solar panels, and the power company in some places is forced by law to pay you for the electricity. But they still pay for the infrastructure, and can't recover that from you the customer, since it used to built into the rates, but you aren't paying that now.

So, there is a need for user fees that has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with serving you with electricity at night.

 

[CJ7VFR]

It's not lost revenue. My power company pays me to be more efficient, because that means they need to build less generating capacity (especially for peak times).

But remember: You need the same infrastructure - poles and wires to houses - no matter what the efficiency. Put up enough solar panels, and the power company in some places is forced by law to pay you for the electricity. But they still pay for the infrastructure, and can't recover that from you the customer, since it used to built into the rates, but you aren't paying that now.

So, there is a need for user fees that has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with serving you with electricity at night.

The definition of revenue is the income that a business has from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers.

Revenue is what business' use to keep their business going. Profits are what is left over after paying all the bills. So I do believe that the power companies are loosing revenue due to more and more solar panel installations. And they need to make that up somewhere.

What you said is good, and I never said anything about greed, but it creates a vicious cycle.

You have solar panels on your roof so the power company pays you. So you not only save money on electricity, but you get paid money from the power company for using solar energy. That is great!

But then they say they need to add user and other fees to recoup their lost money in order to keep the infrastructure going because you and others with solar panels are using less of their generated power. So now you are not actually saving as much as you thought because you are now paying extra in fees.

Then they also say they need to raise the rate at which they supply that power because they are generating less, which means less money for their infrastructure, so now everyone who does NOT have solar panels ends up paying even MORE because the rates went up because of people installing more and more solar panels.

Where does it end? You put solar panels on your roof to save money, but with the added fees and raise in rates, regardless of why the power company does it, means people will eventually pay more out of their pockets for delivered power. And if you are not fortunate enough to have the ability to install solar panels on your home, then you will, in the end, pay more for your electricity than you did before.

Jim

 

[Showkey]

Power companies around here are offering large rebates to switch to LED build getting the cost down to a $1.00 per 60 watt bulb. Some power companies are going to get hit really hard with the switch off coal. Many states are suing the FEDs over the coal issue.


As far as incandescent making a comeback.......Not likely..........CFL costs have dropped to less than .30 per bulb. CFL are in decline as LED take more market share. LED bulb price will continue to drop in all sizes and shapes and will be 80% of the market in three years or less.
As with any price drop the LED will see some bulbs with quality issues.

 

[PFSard]

Interesting article here, looks like some research is being done on improving the efficiency of the incandescent bulb. By the time those new LED lamps burn out we might all be changing again .

Thanks for sharing. Technology will change the face of lighting. I look forward to any positive change that will produce light output more efficiently.

Not related to the OP : For the record, I worked for both Philips Lighting and OSRAM Sylvania. I didn't notice any conspiracy during the 20 years of my employment at these companies.

 

[zmaxmotorsports]

I try my hardest.

 

[ddawg16]

I still think the perfect light bulb is waiting to be found. Is the solution the above? We will have to see.

Funny how sometimes, just sometimes those new rules fuel innovation....kinda like the fuel mileage and emission rules...

 

[theoldwizard1]

I have several nice, heavy table lamps that take 3 way bulbs. I have yet to find any non-incandescent 3 way bulb that will fit in the socket and allow the "harp" to be properly installed to hold the lamp shade.

Even the 1 way 45w CFL do not fit.

 

[Syberia]

The only use I have for incandescents is to generate heat for animals. An efficient bulb is not what I want for that purpose.

 

[cleason]

been an electrician for 40 years, hid lighting replaced flourescent in the 70s, flourescent made come back 06(t-8 and t-5). leds are starting to take over. they dont make an led bright enough to replace a 1000w metalarc at 40 ft in air. i used a 135 watt led high bay and it was 80% of the metal halide. they seem to be the new wave. but we go around in circles. best free light is the sun.

 

[Gidge]

Interesting article here, looks like some research is being done on improving the efficiency of the incandescent bulb. By the time those new LED lamps burn out we might all be changing again .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html

I had a 1960's 150 W bulb -- got it in the 1990s --just died last year --can't beat the quality of old Made in USA products. I understand the old Mazda bulbs were even better (50+ years lifespan).

 

[myredracer]

The thing about incandescent A-lamp bulbs is that the ones sold at retail level are/were only rated 1,000 hours life. The same ones for use on commercial projects and purchased from an electrical wholesaler are/were rated 6,000 hours.

Why would they do that for retail lamps? They can sell 6 times as many and they can get away with it...

Just before the ban on 100 watt lamps came into effect, I bought a bunch of the commercial grade ones for some potlights we have, which we have dimmed down a lot most of the time. After 8+ years, have only had a handful of them burn out. Not overly concerned about efficiency in our case because our house is electrically heated anyway.

 

[Bigbandguy]

In the interest of full disclosure I grew up in a utility company family. My dad actually worked in power generation and house wiring before there WAS a power company... He worked for a guy who owned a little hydro plant supplying about 20 houses. He kept being bought out with various companies and ended up retiring from a really big one. I never saw any particular "conspiracy" either. What I DO see is companies doing what companies do... ratcheting up the rates no matter what.

If I were to have solar installed, I would just install it... not a word to the tax folks, no subsidies no nothing. I would just use less metered power for lighting and have a good battery backup for outages... my main concern is to have civilization remain and the lights stay on.

 

[cleason]

whats a pot light? u growin weed? high pressure sodium and metal halide work a lot better than incandescent.

 

[Dragfluid]

This is still the most efficient.

 

[cleason]

cool looking lamp holder

 

[ThomasP]

Incandescent bulbs have never gone away, how can they make a comeback? Just wonderin'.