Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Okay, so I'm nearly a total zombielet, so it's light blogging for me tonight, literally.

Did you hear about the 107 year old lightbulb in the firestation in Livermore, California? It is claimed this lightbulb has been turned off only a handful of times. Yet here it is burning on. This gives the lie to the proponents of new bulbs which have to be changed more frequently. What does this early bulb have that new bulbs don't??? Or, rather, what do newer, shorter-lived bulbs have that this century-old bulb doesn't have?

Why aren't manufacturerers emulating this very old, efficient bulb, rather than splitting hairs and involving mercury in the process?


Hammer said...

I read about that gbulb when it was 100. gladd to hear it's still around.

Back in the early 80's we purchased a crate of 10,000 hour light bulbs (about 144)

We used them for years and they never burned out but we moved so many times that we used them all up. I'm absolutely positive they have something similar these days.

These new hazmat bulbs suck, they can't be used on a dimmer switch, they are toxic and I really hate enviro-nazis shoving junk science down my throat.

Xander said...

Actually, leaving it on is one of the things that has allowed it to last so long. Cycling a bulb on and off allows the filament to expand and contract as it heats and cools, and eventually weakens it.

The other reason that bulb has lasted so long...It's only 4 watts. That's good for longevity, not so good for seeing things. :-)

Barbara Bruederlin said...

I have seen that light bulb on Mythbusters. Its filaments are massive!

phlegmfatale said...

hammer - wow - that's cool! Smart to buy in bulk, too. Neat. HATE HATE HATE the new bulbs. they're ugly.

xander - aaaaaah, makes sense. THanks! Yeah, it's nice when a light is bright enough to, you know, illuminate things...

barbara - haven't you heard? It's not the size of the filament, but the flow of the current...

Rabbit said...

You're leaving out the one in Ft. Worth at the firehouse?

Tsk. You've obviously not had enough rest.


Anonymous said...

Okay, gotta comment. The battle isn't about longevity, it's about how much power is used. So mercury isn't an issue in this case, because that's an issue of low power, and not longevity.

There's a bunch of people around that are absolutely convinced that we are using too much energy and that in a ridiculously short amount of time we will be bereft of any sort of energy. Ergo we must resort to some gray economy wherein you only get to expend the energy absolutely necessary to exist, and no more.

Here's the facts: We have enought "energy" to burn. We can piss away as much energy as we care to. Energy is everywhere, as long as we care to employ it. There is no PAUCITY of energy! This is a delusion found in the minds of technophobes and other morons. Throughout times there have been numerous observations that we are running out of this, that, or the other. In every single case (Dodos excepted) the paucity has never come to pass. You're looking at idiots that have no clue about history, events, or trends.

We're gonna run out of energy? Hmmph. Not in the next few million years or so...base on our prime energy source...sol.

People. There's energy to burn! We have energy up the wazoo! The stupid morons that insist we have to "conserve" are lunatics. We have to manage temporal resources, of course! We're actually doing a pretty good job of that these days. But to sit there and say we need to throttle our electricity production is tantamount to saying the sun ain't warm enough. Enough! Ignore these pessimistic peckerheads! They won't be happy until we're back in the stone ages eating dirt for a living.

phlegmfatale said...

I don't know who you are, but I Lurves ya!

Rabbit said...

but...but...what about the imminent dirt shortages?