Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#31

Post by khedoros »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #6
userbinator wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentions CFLs and LED lamps, which are definitely subject to the same engineering pressures: This would result in increases of candlepower of 11 and 16 percent respectively.” That boost in illumination, he suggested, “would be acceptable to all flashlight users” despite the fact that the higher current would shorten not just the bulb’s life but also the battery’s. The cartel’s justification for these chan…

Honestly, I'd be fine with optimizing products like that if two things were true: - close-to-perfect recycling infrastructure; i.e. all the stuff that breaks down and is thrown away actually gets reused to create a new generation of stuff, with minimum additional input of energy and material - civilization was a stable thing; making things throwaway depends on ensuring there's always a replacement to buy - which will…

> Honestly, I'd be fine with optimizing products like that if two things were true:

If you're talking about technology being expected to break down and be cheaply replaced on the scale of single-digit years, it sounds like a never-ending nightmare. I'd need to add two more points, at least.

- Strict upgrades (that is, there must be nothing about a new version of a product that's worse than the one before it); if one feature/technology was present in the older version of something, the new version must provide the same capability. I'm thinking of the old hardware I keep around because of "That one thing that only runs in Windows 98" and "That one thing I can only flash over a parallel port".

- A mechanism to automatically, securely, and privately image the new machine with the previous machine's configuration and data. The nests I build on my machines feel like home.

Given only your first two points, I still wouldn't buy a machine that I didn't expect to last at least 5 years, and preferably 10.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#32

Post by _ph_ »

ars wrote: post #14

> Of course, given the collective ingenuity of the cartel’s engineers and scientists, it should have been possible to design a lightbulb that was both bright and long-lived. And not energy efficient. The article lightly touches on it, but the physical reality is that the better the electrical efficiency the less time the bulb lasts. It's a tradeoff that has not changed in 100 years. So yes, the cartel did mandate 1,0…

This is the one big thing missing in most reports about the lightbulb lifetime. Even consumers profited via power-savings from this lifetime agreement.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#33

Post by _ph_ »

wtallis wrote: post #20
Spooky23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEDs suck less, and are much better than garbage CFL, but are still more expensive and less versatile than the old bulbs, particularly when you need a bright bulb.

Fortunately, you only need a bright bulb for flashlights and for fixtures that are intended for incandescent bulbs. For general interior lighting, a large array/string of relatively dim LEDs is usually fine.

Not sure why you would think anyone today would use an incandescent bulb in a flashlight. This is where LEDs just took over. I have a pencil sizes LED flashlight that matches the brightness of my Maglite only when I put it in power-saving mode - otherwise its about 10x as bright.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#34

Post by Stratoscope »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #16
Stratoscope wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of a private cartel regulating light bulb lifespan and fining manufacturers whose bulbs last more or less than that time, you want the government to do the same?

There is a pretty big difference between a mandatory lifetime and a minimum lifetime. As far as I know, minimum fitness-for-purpose standards are pretty good for the consumer.

That's a fair criticism. I did conflate two different things there, and I was needlessly snarky. (And I upvoted your comment for pointing it out.)

I also failed to address the thing that bothered me in the comment I replied to:

> Far from a cartel, we should let the government create a standardized LED lifespan rating based on the actual needs of consumers. For example, if we know the average renovation cycle for single family houses in the US is ten years, then we should make LED bulbs that are rated for 10 years.

Why should it be the government's business to determine what "the actual needs of consumers" are? How does the government know what the average renovation cycle for single family homes is? What about people who want to spend more for longer-lasting bulbs, or spend less for shorter-lived ones? What about other types of homes that don't fit the government-specified "average renovation cycle"?

How do companies innovate when the government has said, "This is the standard specification for an LED light bulb. You will make them to our standard or you won't make them at all."

I just find the very concept offensive that this should be any business of the government. Life is full of trade-offs, and it seems to me that the government - the instrument of force - is least capable of anyone to make these trade-offs.

Regardless of my personal feelings, there is a real cost in getting the government involved in these things. Government intervention never comes for free.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#35

Post by afarrell »

Symbiote wrote: post #30
Spooky23 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment captures the problem far better. For 100 years, if a bulb burned out or you bought a lamp, you went a bought a sodding lightbulb. The choices were clear... good brand/shit brand. 20/40/60/75/100/150/3way. Soft white or not soft white. They cost like a quarter. Now the Home Depot lightbulb aisle is as complicated as the screw and fastener aisle. My guess is the average bigbox home store has 50 SKUs on the…

Go to Ikea. They have about four bulbs for each socket (pear and candle, dim and bright), and the ones I bought a year ago are very good. I think they have more incentive to sell good quality bulbs than the average store, since they sell the fitting and market being environmentally friendly. Of the ones I bought, some were made in China and some in Germany.

There are some US states whithout an IKEA, such as Maine.

Incidentally, in Maine, incandescent light bulbs are almost 100% efficient for much of the year as they produce both light and heat.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#36

Post by afarrell »

Symbiote wrote: post #30
Spooky23 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment captures the problem far better. For 100 years, if a bulb burned out or you bought a lamp, you went a bought a sodding lightbulb. The choices were clear... good brand/shit brand. 20/40/60/75/100/150/3way. Soft white or not soft white. They cost like a quarter. Now the Home Depot lightbulb aisle is as complicated as the screw and fastener aisle. My guess is the average bigbox home store has 50 SKUs on the…

Go to Ikea. They have about four bulbs for each socket (pear and candle, dim and bright), and the ones I bought a year ago are very good. I think they have more incentive to sell good quality bulbs than the average store, since they sell the fitting and market being environmentally friendly. Of the ones I bought, some were made in China and some in Germany.

There are some US states whithout an IKEA, such as Maine.

Incidentally, in Maine, incandescent light bulbs are almost 100% efficient for much of the year as they produce both light and heat.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#37

Post by DanBC »

Stratoscope wrote: post #34
Dylan16807 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pretty big difference between a mandatory lifetime and a minimum lifetime. As far as I know, minimum fitness-for-purpose standards are pretty good for the consumer.

That's a fair criticism. I did conflate two different things there, and I was needlessly snarky. (And I upvoted your comment for pointing it out.) I also failed to address the thing that bothered me in the comment I replied to: > Far from a cartel, we should let the government create a standardized LED lifespan rating based on the actual needs of consumers. For example, if we know the average renovation cycle for sin…

> Why should it be the government's business to determine what "the actual needs of consumers" are?

The government has signed up to various international treaties around ewaste and other eco indicators.

Consumers only buy on price.

Government sets minimum standards, which forces manufacturers to build their minimum cost devices to that standard. Manfs can also offer better devices for more money.

> How do companies innovate when the government has said, "This is the standard specification for an LED light bulb. You will make them to our standard or you won't make them at all."

Your mobile phone is intensely regulated across a number of different regulators. There seems to be plenty of innovation in cellphones.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#38

Post by Neil44 »

russdill wrote: post #19

Don't forget though that there really is a direct correlation between efficiency, brightness, and lifetime. Your electric stove makes a great long lasting light. Just turn all 4 burns on full. It will last virtually forever.

Yes it's not such an immoral decision as it is presented. Light bulbs that have energy consumption in the KW range because people want them to last forever would not be good.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#39

Post by barking »

I miss the times when every light fitting was the same (one size, bayonet style). I don't know how many different types and sizes of fittng we have. It's a pain replacing bulbs now. I preferred the light from the old incandescent bulbs too and if they give off a little heat, well living in the temperate zone we need a little heat after dark.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#40

Post by Stratoscope »

DanBC wrote: post #37
Stratoscope wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair criticism. I did conflate two different things there, and I was needlessly snarky. (And I upvoted your comment for pointing it out.) I also failed to address the thing that bothered me in the comment I replied to: > Far from a cartel, we should let the government create a standardized LED lifespan rating based on the actual needs of consumers. For example, if we know the average renovation cycle for sin…

> Why should it be the government's business to determine what "the actual needs of consumers" are? The government has signed up to various international treaties around ewaste and other eco indicators. Consumers only buy on price. Government sets minimum standards, which forces manufacturers to build their minimum cost devices to that standard. Manfs can also offer better devices for more money. > How do companies i…

Thanks for your comment, you raise some good points. I do have to question a couple of things:

> Consumers only buy on price.

Really? Everyone I know also looks at reviews, brand reputation, and other factors. Of course you're right that sometimes we just buy the cheapest option. :-)

> Your mobile phone is intensely regulated across a number of different regulators. There seems to be plenty of innovation in cellphones.

Is the innovation in the areas governments regulate, or in the areas they don't? I just made a list of 20 or so key attributes of a cellphone, and I don't think they are things that are regulated. (I was going to post the list, but had second thoughts that it may seem argumentative, and they seem pretty obvious anyway.)

Post reply on HN