You need to spell and grammar check your writing
Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
191–200 of 202 posts
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#192I've never had LED lights last anywhere near the purported 5-7 year timeframe. The worst ones are the small decorative ones with the tinier screw part that my house seems to have an inordinate number of. Those last maybe 6 months and then they start getting dimmer and then all the lights in the circuit get worse at once. I like LED lights immensely but the idea they last even 2 years is a lie in my opinion.
We moved into a new house in November 2022 and bought all lights anew. LEDs all around, some 25 devices taken all together.
44 months later, all of them are still working.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really dislike the rhetorical trick of framing any opposing argument as “apologist”. It’s the new “shill”; an attempt to attack motives rather than argument.
What is apologism then?
The point isn't that it sometimes isn't apologism, but that it is used even when it isn't apologism
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#194Hey friends, why you do not pull off that second resistor in order to make your LED bulb to emit 30% of power but to have endless lifespawn? Your TV has a matrix of LED with endless lifespawn. Just don't be a blind consumer, also you can glue off the cap which blurs the light winning 10% of light, also you can drill the radiator for helping to cool the debuffed bulb even more.
thanx for downvotes, blind consumers. or check your favorite information sources about the second resistor and about how much lm/w gives 30%-ed lamp related to a 100%-ed one otherways.
Probably the down votes are from people who have no idea what you're going on about, or what it's got to do with an article entirely about the early history of incandescent bulbs.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand why having the driver converting AC to DC inside the LED spots is the default. because LED bulbs are drop-in replacement for incandescent bulbs. AC is pre-installed stand-alone LEDs don't have converters, be it singular or be it strips
They said for new houses.
Are you going to buy a new house that you can't get lightbulbs for?
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#1965700 is a terrible temperature for lighting unless that matches the daylight. Soft white and even reddish is much better at night. Presumably, most artificial light it used at night. 2700 is more like it. My LED lightbulbs change temperature based on the time of day and are dull red at night so you both don't wake up and you don't stub your toe. Show me a non-LED that can do that.
5700 is the temperature at which the peak is in the visible spectrum. It has nothing to do with lighting quality.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#197> "Therefore, this was done so that people would always need to buy more light bulbs." This is wrong, but it's the type of wrong that cites its sources and hides in the part you'd never think to fact check Just as a general point: I haven't seen a product decision that wasn't sold with some official explanation why it's "really for the good of everyone". Google's Manifest v3 was about reducing performance bottlenecks…
[dead]
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#198While the author mentions that they are not trying to defend the Phoebus cartel, I think they may inadvertently be somewhat misleading in their explanation. What they are saying is, from an engineering standpoint, true. But my understanding of the argument against the Phoebus cartel is that it was using legitimate engineering points as the official justification for profiteering business collusion: that the points we…
The article is complete and utter nonsense, probably intentionally so because it's the type that will drive engagement. The reason planned obsolescence is insidiously effective is precisely because the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity. You can easily say 'yeah I like how bright [or whatever else] this bulb is' but lifespans are scarcely taken into account. If they were then massi…
But the article isn’t saying that no form of planned obsolescence exists. If you think it’s important to make people aware of genuine planned obsolescence, then use examples of genuine planned obsolescence. Using incorrect or highly misleading examples is doing the cause a big disfavour.
You say the article is nonsense but all your points are about entirely different products/markets. So what exactly was nonsense about the article. It’s factually correct, and it’s raising awareness of something important: that we shouldn’t trust narratives just because they’re compelling and useful to make people engaged in a cause (the fight against planned obsolescence).
The kind of standardisation we got with light bulbs is exactly the thing we want: the avoid companies trying to sell you a bad product (one that wastes electricity and dumps heat in your home whether you want it or not), so they can use some less important metric (buy this! It lasts twice as long the competitors!) to sell you stuff. Basically a scam.
We don’t want to throw the baby out of the bathwater. Companies should be allowed to cooperate and set standard (NACS is a recent example) that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Then we create regulations to address egregious cases of planned obsolescence. Like EUs recent regulations for replaceable batteries - though as we now see it’s a double edged sword. Some products were made worse in a mildly significant way. That’s OK though as long as we decided that’s what we want through a democratic process.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#199I've never had LED lights last anywhere near the purported 5-7 year timeframe. The worst ones are the small decorative ones with the tinier screw part that my house seems to have an inordinate number of. Those last maybe 6 months and then they start getting dimmer and then all the lights in the circuit get worse at once. I like LED lights immensely but the idea they last even 2 years is a lie in my opinion.
Only bulbs I’ve had fail in the last 10 year was some IKEA GU10 bulbs (maybe 2-3 years). I got them replaced for free with no receipt, and the new design had obvious improvements to managing thermals.
It shows that, yeah, bad designs can fail early. But if you buy from a reputable company, it is likely to be fixed.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is complete and utter nonsense, probably intentionally so because it's the type that will drive engagement. The reason planned obsolescence is insidiously effective is precisely because the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity. You can easily say 'yeah I like how bright [or whatever else] this bulb is' but lifespans are scarcely taken into account. If they were then massi…
But the article isn’t saying that no form of planned obsolescence exists. If you think it’s important to make people aware of genuine planned obsolescence, then use examples of genuine planned obsolescence. Using incorrect or highly misleading examples is doing the cause a big disfavour. You say the article is nonsense but all your points are about entirely different products/markets. So what exactly was nonsense abo…
The article is literally lying for clickbait. You can read a real article with actual research, quotes from the involved parties, and more here. [1] You can also read the government lawsuits with similar investigations. [2] The cartel's sole and only motivation was profit. Getting the bulbs down to 1000 hours was driven solely by a desire to increase repeated purchases - planned obsolescence.
Most criminal organizations give themselves a moralistic argument, probably in part to ease cognitive dissonance as I think most people, including those doing awful things, are inherently moral. For instance many of the brutal drug lords during the hey day of Columbia's cocaine trafficking would spend significant amounts of money supporting education, religion, and other forms of local social services in various poorer areas in the country. The same is true of Mexican drug cartels in modern times.
So it is true that one of the easiest ways to reduce the life of a bulb is to have it burn brighter, but that's largely incidental. It's akin to how Apple actively downgrades performance on older iPhones under the pretext of enabling them to operate longer with the reduced battery life. In reality it makes the phones miserable to use, far moreso than a reduced battery life, and drives users to go purchase new phones. Exact same business. The pretext is just a pretext.
[1] - https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy
[2] - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/8...