![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
{{edit semi-protected}}
The link marked "more energy-efficient light bulbs" is broken, pointing to a section of the article that was migrated into it's own, namely
"Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs".
Consideration undeserved but impossible to overlook, EOF.
Hamiltonham (
talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Done
My76
Strat
04:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I took out a very old (yet recent enough for copyright to still be an issue) and very possibly outdated graph put here by Skatebiker, who put it right back in. The graph is not labeled properly (are the units on the right y axis hours? who knows?). I also question the right of WP to publish this image copyrighted Kluwer academic publishers in 1945. I am no authority on copyright issues, but Skatebiker's statement on the file page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lightbulb-life.svg implies that he/she released rights? How can that be if quite possibly you never owned the rights in the first place? You work for Kluwer? Please explain? Jack B108 ( talk) 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend that anyone contributing discussions of cost of heating and cost of lighting has references at hand to show the numbers. For example, where I live the tail-block rate for electricity is 6.57 cents Canadian per kwh - certainly among the lowest residential electricity rates on earth. Looking at my November bill, my house used 1110 kwh of electricity and 159.5 cubic metres of natural gas. Reducing the costs (including taxes) to common units shows electricity costs me 8.05 cents/kwh and gas costs 3.69 cents/kwh. I'm better off unscrewing the incandescent lamps and using LEDs or CFLs and burning the extra natural gas in my own high-efficiency furnace, instead of throwing 60% of the heat value away by burning gas in Manitoba Hydro's peaking plants. It's even probably still a win on CO2 emissions, since the electricity I don't use is shipped down to Minneapolis to displace coal-fired generation. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to screw up these pages, but wonder about this change I would propose.
The Section on bases is a little confusing. I would propose that someone put it in sub-sections as the bulb shapes sizes section has: wedge bases, edison screw, filament extended or whatever. I'd lead with edison screw since this is perhaps the most familiar to people--and include the names of the edison screw base sizes (which I have just done.) I felt that putting the sizes here rather than just on the edison screw page was warranted since I believe people may be looking for that information (as I had been), but without the link here would not know where to look. (I had to talk to an actual human at an electric supply place to figure it out, then I was able to use wikip.) Wikikd ( talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could add under; Efficiency and environmental impact table this lamp data
R7s 230V 120W 2250 Lumen 2000h 2900K Reflector ECO Halogen Lamp (Energy rating C) - Luminous efficacy 18,75lm/W
R7s 230V 500W 8000 Lumen 1000h Reflector Halogen Lamp (Energy rating E) - Luminous efficacy 16lm/W
R7s 230V 400W 8600 Lumen 2000h 2700K Reflector ECO Halogen Lamp (Energy rating C)- Luminous efficacy 21,5lm/W
Pyr0Beast ( talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I compared the article with a sibling in another language (German in this case) and I had a time looking for the main section on "Environmental Issues" simply b/c in this article it is titled "Efficiency comparisons" which is, technically, a term of much narrower scope than what the section comprises. I would like to suggest editing the section headline to run "Environmental [and efficacy] Issues" or something the like.
-- 217.229.51.175 ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The information is not correct.
a carbonized bamboo filament, in a vacuum bottle to prevent oxidation
According to information given by himself, he used platinum lead-in wires in an all-glass envelope, and a high vacuum (using the process invented by Torricelli) to prevent disintegration of the carbon made of bamboo. First he used the glass-material of Eau-de-Cologne-Bottles for making his all-glass envelopes, later he used glass-tubes. He used a blowpipe to melt the bottle, but the lamp was never a bottle. Source: United States Circuit Court, District of Massachussets, affidavit Mr. Henry Goebel 21 January 1893, Edison Electric Light vs. Beacon Vaccuum Pump, pages 18-26
Despite a successful recreation of his lamp in 1882,Lewis Latimer demonstrated that the bulbs that Göbel had purportedly built in the 1850s, had actually been built much later, and found the glassblower who had constructed the fraudulent exhibits. In a patent interference suit in 1893, the judge ruled Göbel's claim "extremely improbable".
In the case Edison Electric Light Co. vs. Columbia Incand. Light Co. 182 persons supported the Goebel-Claims and 142 persons supported the Edison view ( Heinrich Goebel never constructed practical lamps earlier than 1880). Approximatly 75 persons confirmed the story of Mr. Goebels telescope in the 1850th at Union Square and the advertisment using electric lamps . A comparable number of Persons never saw electric lights around his telescope at Union Square, New York. You can't establish the truth giving just this one affidavit of a glasblower out of 324 affidavits. In preliminary litigations ( motion for a preliminary injunction) 3 courts ruled for Edison and one against Edison. The opinion of judge Hallett: It is not reasonable to believe that he made the story related in his affidavit, and did not make the lamp he has described. Whatever may be said as to Goebel's veracity, he is supported at many points by witnesses of good repute, who speak with precision, and apparently with deliberation. Unfortunatly there was never a final hearing in these cases because of the expiry of the Edison-patent in 1894. Online-Source: [1]
In 2000-2007 a research project analysed all documents of the case available in National Record Registrations in the USA; in addition research work about the biografy of Heinrich Goebel took place. The dissertation is available as a book: Hans-Christian Rohde: Die Göbel-Legende – Der Kampf um die Erfindung der Glühlampe. Zu Klampen, Springe 2007, ISBN 978-3-86674-006-8 The "Goebel-Defense" was according to the results fraudulent. Lawyers und Mr. Franklin Pope, an early friend of Thomas Edison and later in quarrel with him, were responsible for moving the story into the international press and to construct the extensive "Goebel-Defense" on the base of a story about Heinrich Goebel published by the New York Times in 1882.
Many sources about Heinrich Göbel, mainly based on documents from the USA, are given in Wikipedia Germany/ Heinrich Goebel. [2]
Heinrich Göbel changed his Nationality in 1865 and used from this year the name Henry Goebel.-- 89.204.137.234 ( talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The following statement is made:
...The upper limit to the temperature at which metal incandescent bulbs can operate is the melting point of the metal. Tungsten is the metal with the highest melting point, 3,695 K (6,191 °F)...
Is it the metal with the highest melting point? Are alloys included? I think this statement should be worded more conservatively----something like
...The upper limit to the operating temperature of metal incandescent bulbs is the melting point of the filament. Tungsten has a very high melting point, 3,695 K (6,191 °F) and other favorable properties, so it is used extensively.
IMHO 129.176.151.10 ( talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change "Westminister" to "Westminster" (ie, correct the spelling).
69.128.154.31 ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
1000bulbs ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
External link edit request: point to archived page :
[ Light Bulbs - Lamps and Tubes - Lamp Bases Explained{archived copy}
-- User:Guest 20:30, 14 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.3.223 ( talk)
I wonder if you should make it more clear that the LED technology don't produce radio interference by itself. The driving electronic produce this when switching the power (240v AC) to a more suitable level for the LEDs (they need DC at approx a few volts, depending on the model and number of LEDs used).
Dimmers are another source of radio interference, even when driving traditional Light bulbs. A dimmer turns on the light somewhere between the AC peak (both positive and negative period) and ground, causing a current rush. This happens 50 (or 60) times a second.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.21.122 ( talk) 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
reference 3 no longer works as a link to nonsubscribers of it. You should be able to substitute.
97.101.55.118 ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Diogenes
According to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, a potetial featured article has the following attributes:
Also, the criteria say that the article must follow the MoS including:
Starting from the easy ones: - I think it may still be a little long and rambling; - There's lots of pictures. - Needs citations for radio frequenncy interference. - Some sections have no sub-parts, others have many sub-parts. - Yes, there's a lead that gives the "high points" of the article. - There haven't been many big recent changes to the contents. - No-one has flagged any neutrality issues. - Tons of references - Seems to cover the subject comprehensively. - Well-written: Prose needs work, isn't brilliant yet.
-- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please add link reference for the socket standard article (E10, E14, E27, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davipoyastro ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Reflector Bulb Shapes | Bulb Forming Process | |
---|---|---|
R | side curve bounded by a conic section below the major diameter | 1 |
BR | like the "R" shape but with a neck bulge | 1 |
ER | side curve formed by an elliptical section below the major diameter | 1 |
PAR | side curve formed by a parabolic section below the major diameter | 1 or 2 |
|
-- 75.90.160.210 ( talk) 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
-- 75.90.168.122 ( talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that the table comparing efficacies of light bulbs by power is very nice and informative, however, it will be nicer if it includes 240V lamps as well. Does anyone have a source for the efficacies of 120V lamps or 240V lamps? BloodIce ( talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that this article states a historical resource which states that twenty-two people may have been able to lay claim to inventing the electric bulb prior to Swan and Edison. It has long been my view that of Swan and Thomas Alva Edison, Swan was the true pioneer, as his bulb dates to 1860, predating Edison's bulb, which dates to the 1870s. This information was something I read at school in the Oxford Encyclopaedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The Cost of Light
Considering the value of energy savings and lifetime may allow a modest premium over the initial cost of traditional technologies. Life-cycle cost, the effective “cost of light,” can be estimated by including lamp cost, energy consumption and maintenance over a lighting service period. The units used for this lighting service period are dollars per kilolumen-hours ($/klm-hr):
Cost of Light = 1/LampLumens * { (LampCost + LaborCost)/Lifetime + (EnergyUse x EnergyCost) }
Where:
LampLumens = the light output of the lamp measured in lumens
LampCost = the initial cost (first cost) of the lamp in dollars
LaborCost = the labor cost necessary to replace a lamp in dollars
Lifetime = the useful operating life of the lamp, expressed in 1000 hours
EnergyUse = the power consumption of the lamp, expressed in Watts
EnergyCost = the cost of the electricity necessary to operate lamp in $/kWh
By this measure, it can be argued that LED-based illumination is already a viable economic alternative for many applications. For instance, although incandescent lamps have a very low cost and high lumen output compared with LEDs, the LED source has a much longer lifetime and consumes far less power. In fact, using the equation above and looking at a finite quantity of light emission (one million lumen-hours), typical LEDs already have a slightly lower “cost of light” than incandescent and halogen sources today.
Under “History of the light bulb,” there is a passage:
“In 1840, British scientist Warren de la Rue enclosed a coiled platinum filament in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it. The design was based on the concept that the high melting point of platinum would allow it to operate at high temperatures and that the evacuated chamber would contain fewer gas molecules to react with the platinum, improving its longevity. Although an efficient design, the cost of the platinum made it impractical for commercial use.[10][11]”
The two citations both list de la Rue to have created this invention in 1820, yet the article says 1840. This is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmurg69 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The section talking about banning the light bulb has a very political overtone to it (in bold): There has been consumer resistance to phasing out of incandescent lamps, preferring the quality of light produced from incandescents[44], the Libertarian political theory of free markets as somehow precluding national interest as a reason for regulation, and concerns about mercury contamination with CFLs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjstigall ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't early light bulbs use a carbon filament? If so, this phrase from the introduction should be changed to remove the word "metal". -- 77.189.55.229 ( talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
While the Light emitted from florescent lighting can be dangerous to people with light sensitivity disorders, the Mercury inside of every florescent light constitutes a serious health hazard to everyone in the event that the light breaks or cracks. Unlike normal incandecents where no toxic chemicals are released, and LED's where mercury shouldn't be released (although studies have found that some unscrupulous LED makers use small amounts of Mercury in the LED.).
I was given the go-ahead to add some more minor improvements to carbon filament production techniques to the timeline, since it's so incredibly important that we include (only for the sake of political correctness) Lewis Latimer to the timeline. Was the inclusion of other "pioneers" in filament production processes not acceptable? 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
First, this discussion really should go on the talk page of the template, not here.
Second, there are no "moderators". There are "administrators" ("admins"), but they have no particular decision-making authority in content disputes, which is what we have here. Content disputes are usually settled by WP:CONSENSUS. If you want outside help with a content dispute (that is, if you want more people to participate) you would usually first ask for comments on the talk pages of related articles, or of associated Wikiprojects. Other procedures for resolving content disputes are suggested here: WP:DR
Third, a patent does serve as a reference for a claim that "person X got a patent on Y", but it doesn't really establish the importance of Y.
Fourth... Demanding changes to an article (or a template) under threat that you'll make another change if your demands aren't met (as you did ( here), then admitting that your purpose in adding your material was to dilute the apparent importance of material you don't like... that just isn't how things are done here. Jeh ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
User:76.119.76.228 asked me to take a lot at this dispute. Although I have some familiarity with Edison's light bulb (I live in New Jersey, and I did science projects and papers on him in grade school and high school--and hell, I just was just in Fort Lee yesterday, which Edison made motion picture capital of America prior to Hollywood), I am less familiar with the pre-Edison early history of the light bulb in general, and Lewis Latimer in particular. But maybe that'll lend itself to greater objectivity on my part.
The first thing I notice is that this discussion seems like it's on the same topic as "Timeline Edit Request" above. Why are they separate? Can they be merged in order to keep the history of the dispute in one place? Or do the participants here feel that the are distinct in scope?
76.119.76.228, you say you were "given the go-ahead to add some more minor improvements" to the timeline. To whom were you referring that gave you this go-ahead?
Also, 76.119.76.228, you really need to refrain from accusing others of "POV" with little or no evidence to support this. It certainly possible for an editor to take a good faith position in a matter without being motivated by POV. Unless you can exclude all other possible motivators for a given position, it is best to focus on the content of the dispute, and not the editor. Please see WP:AGF.
It is also not in keeping with WP:Civility to refer to another editor's words as a "blob of incoherent text". Looking at Jeh's message, I see nothing incoherent about it, and speaking this way to editors with whom you are involved in a dispute is definitely not the way to get them to see your side of things.
John, you mentioned that it's very repetitive to have half a dozen entries on essentially the same innovation. This makes sense to me, but if I my ask, what is the significance of Latimer's contribution, compared to the others? I know I'm the johnny-come-lately to this, but I'd appreciate if you gave me a primer on this. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize that no-one has the authority to give me the go-ahead, but the go-ahead was regardless given me by Stepho in the "Timeline Edit Request":
"Feel free to edit the article text or the timeline to be consistent. The timeline can be edited at Template:Early evolution of the light bulb . Stepho talk 09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)"
I respectfully retract my "incoherent blob of text" comment. I believe "ridiculous blob of text" would be more accurate; I wasn't attacking the messenger, I was attacking the message:
Jeh had stated "a patent does serve as a reference for a claim that 'person X got a patent on Y', but it doesn't really establish the importance of Y." And the importance (or lack thereof) was precisely my point, which makes the inclusion of those references all the more valid. Those references were being deleted by another editor, and this entire discussion has stemmed from those actions. For User Jeh to diminish the validity of patent numbers as references (after User JohnBlackburne had the nerve to call them "pointless"), and then to use the question of importance as the basis for his argument...well, let's just say it turned me off a bit from receiving WP policy lessons from him (though, admittedly, his points WERE valid and I'm still working out the kinks and trying to adhere.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "easy bake oven toy to household appliances.
99.56.240.174 ( talk) 16:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: If you can find a reference which calls it a household appliance, reopen the request. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
19:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "phase-control triac dimmers" links "triac" to Wikipedia's article on thyristors. Since there's a dedicated article for TRIAC, the link should be changed.
Hmm... Where is Ladygin with his volfram lamp, argon lamp, and patents which was selled to General Electrics on this timeline?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.109.163 ( talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The timeline shows that Lewis Latimer was responsible for "Better Filament Production". However, his contribution to the production techniques of carbon filaments during that time were among hundreds of advancements in carbon filament manufacture. He is mentioned in this articles purely for bias and POV, as Mr. Latimer is cited by many black-supremacy groups as not only being influential to the development of incandescent bulbs, but in some cases cited as having been the actual inventor of the bulb itself.
If his name is not removed from the timeline by 11/10/2011, I will add to the timeline the name of every inventor who holds patents for the manufacture of carbon filaments for the incandescent bulb, since it's so obviously important that we mention Latimer's near-insignificant process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 11:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it's the 11th. I forgot. But later today, I'm going to be doing exactly that - adding at least a dozen inventors names to the timeline for "filament production techniques." Seriously, does no-one have any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The timline is not compatible with the information in the article, For example it says William David Coolage invented Tungston fillement 1910. But in the article it says "On December 13, 1904, Hungarian Sándor Just and Croatian Franjo Hanaman were granted a Hungarian patent (No. 34541)..." Which is not mentioned in the timeline. This is only one example. --upulpp 04:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upulpp( talk • contribs)
The timeline itself contains little information, yet it takes up a huge amount of article space. I do not understand the timeline layout and formatting - would it be possible to float it to the right side of the page so that there could be text alongside it? Where can I find a guide about this kind of information presentation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that source [36] is not related to any document. There's just written the page and the table number, without any other reference. Actually, the sentence it refers to attracts my curiosity as well: isn't all the power converted into heat for a light source? I mean, visible light is a form of radiation transferring heat.. Stefanomoret ( talk) 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Stefano
I'm not a wikipedia expert. I don't understand why I can't edit the main page. Anyway, there's a typo. It says the Phoebus cartel lasted from 1924 until WWI. Obviously it should be WWII. And it's probably worth changing it to "World War Two", with a link.
Fixed. If you register a user ID, you can edit semi-protected pages; sometimes articles get locked out for IP address editors due to vandalism problems. There might be Wikipedia experts out there, but I'm not one either. --
Wtshymanski (
talk)
15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Article says this: "Luminous efficacy of a light source is a ratio of the visible light energy emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the lamp." Flux is a measure of power, not energy. It might be better stated "Luminous efficacy is the ratio of the power of the light emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the lamp." JohnEinNJ ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The chart would help if it included more than incandescents and halogens; why doesn't it contain common fluorescent, compact fluorescent, and LEDs that people may have experience with? I have an LED bulb in my hand that does 54 lm/watt right now. 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That's the big question that makes this a Wikipedia Vital Article, but I believe we're unnecessarily adding confusion here in our article where it doesn't need to be. For instance the way Davy is highlighted with the timeline and the opening paragraphs give him massive undue importance. First, he did not invent or ever make a light bulb, which is the subject of our article. If we want to talk about another subject, the arc light; or we want to discuss the science that preceded the light bulb, then we need to be more clear that Davy was not one of the light bulb inventors. Even then, L. Davis, the author used as a source for Davy, speaking of the arc light (not even a light bulb) actually says that Davy "didn't invent it and never claimed to" (it was Allasandro Volta, 1800). So does Davy even warrant a mention here? At the very least we need to restructure to remove the confusion placing him at the top of light bulb inventors. Our article also needs to be clear that James Bowman Lindsay did in fact invent the first light bulb in 1835, not just an "electric light" as it says, which confuses him with the earlier inventors of non-bulb lights. The facts that 1) he didn't patent or promote it, 2) it was not commercially viable, and 3) it was a very, very short-lived filament... all do not diminish that he invented, built, and described a light bulb in 1835, which is the subject of our article. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 08:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree that the James Bowman Lindsay article also needs to be updated, but because it is a much-less watched page, I wanted these very important changes to be vetted by a wider group first. Didn't want to sneak anything in the back door. ;) I will make sure to add sources that verify his device was used for lighting (reading/writing) and that he did enclose it in glass and discuss it burning without air. When you say that "Many experimenters applied a battery to a piece of iron...", as if it were nothing, we only care here about the first to do that and enclose it in glass for the purpose of lighting. Reliable sources say the Lindsay did that in 1835. No reliable source says that anyone else did it earlier. The independant verification that he invented it is 1) his word printed by public news before anyone else invented or even described it (timing is the main proof, his word is second), and 2) independant published account that the lectures did actually take place where he showed the invention, including dates, times, & location. 3)Many secondary sources establishing he had a light bulb in 1835. The fact that it burned dimly (or any other quality issue) is irrelevant to the question of who first invented the light bulb, except in this case to prove that Lindsay's was not an arc light. Many of the secondary sources give credit to Warren De la Rue in 1820 for inventing the light bulb, following a huge error in Ency Britt. Even our Warren De la Rue page said he did, I just fixed it; you might want to review my edit there. They failed to notice that he would have been only 5 yrs old at the time, lol! I'll try to get these changes done within the week. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 20:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Right now this
Light bulb redirects to
Incandescent light bulb. I am not sure that this should be the case. In contemporary times worldwide many communities are discouraging some traditional household uses of incandescent light bulbs and encouraging the public to use other kinds of bulbs. I am not sure that the term "light bulb" for most people still refers to an incandescent bulb - I have lived in the United States and India and in both countries many local broad government efforts have for years encouraged people to use fluorescent bulbs, for example.
Could I request comment on creating an article called "Light bulb" which would give general information on
Compact fluorescent lamps and
Incandescent light bulbs? This new article would draw from both of those and take information from
Electric light. The use that I am imagining is that a household could want information about various types of lightbulbs for home use, and the problem which I want to circumvent is the the search of someone seeking a household-use overview for "light bulb", and instead that person gets a history of the originally invented lightbulb rather than information about all contemporary light bulbs.
What is the rationale for having "light bulb" redirect here instead of to its own article or to electric light?
Blue Rasberry
(talk)
14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page on incandescent lightbulbs needs this information added:
"The white powdery substance on the inside of most common household and commercial incandescent bulbs is called Kaolin. Kaolin, or Kaolinite, is a white, chalky clay in a very fine powder form, that is blown in and electrostaticlly deposited on the interior of the bulb. It serves to very effectively diffuse the light emitted from the filament, producing a more gentle and evenly distributed light. Manufacturers are able to vary the thickness, composition and total amount of the kaolin in a bulb in order to adjust the characteristics of the final light emitted from the bulb. Many brands are established around this, notably General Electric's "Reveal" series. Kaolin diffused bulbs are used extensively in interior lighting because of their comparatively gentle light."
The page is semi-protected, and while I am an expert on the subject, I am not a registered user. Just thought I'd make my little contribution here and there. If someone could please add.
Definitive citations (permalink):
http://www.geconsumerandindustrial.com/environmentalinfo/documents/msds/msds_incandescent_lamps.pdf
potential citations:
< http://www.teamdroid.com/diy-hollow-out-a-light-bulb/> & < http://www.geconsumerandindustrial.com/environmentalinfo> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.44.78 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Posted by an anon on WT:ENERGY, posted here on behalf of anon by User:extra999. extra999 ( talk) 08:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the Health Issues section at the end. The problems mention refer to fluorescent bulbs, not incandescents. It seems as if someone was trying to make a point (POV) that CFL bulb light may be harmful to health. That may be so, but it doesn't belong here. I'll check back later, and if no one has objected, I'll delete the section. MarkinBoston ( talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody with editing rights please review edits by Apteva (currently blocked)? Some edits were genuine link improvements while some were stealth edits changing complete meaning of sentences without any supporting references and, quite frankly, just garbage insertions. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 ( talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is a recent discovery news article on an electricity free light bulb that uses genetically engineered bacteria; would this be the correct article to mention it? [1] CensoredScribe ( talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A citation is needed for the sentence: "Heat from lights will displace heat required from a building's heating system, but generally space heating energy is of lower cost than heat from lighting." CozmicCharlie ( talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe this is correct, even with the referencte (which I can't check). Is "The eighth patent issued in 1880" meant? I can't believe it was the eigth patent ever issued in the UK, especially later in the section it says the same patentee got Patent 4933 in the same year. Can anyone check this? Si Trew ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
tag for now (it may still be wrong, perhaps we should say 1878 or 1880, but that's a bit weasely). I doubt I could do more or better research than you, so I think it's really your call.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)The last sentence in this section reads:
Now perhaps I am being thick, but the second half of this sentence "while clear bulbs..." just repeats the first part, inverted, and should be cut. But I don't know what is meant by a "standard" bulb is; if "clear" is meant, then it should say so, not say "clear bulb" and "standard bulb" if they mean the same thing (this elegant variation is annulled anyway by the repetition in the second half of the sentence). Similarly I think what are called "soft white" bulbs in the article would be what we call "pearl[escent]" bulbs in the United Kingdom?
Perhaps the article could say e.g. "coated" bulbs instead of "soft white" (or "pearl"), but this is a bit vague since all bulbs are coated in several ways for other reasons. "Pigmented" or "colo[u]red" doesn't seem right either. Other editors have probably got better terminology than I can think of.
SO, may I suggest as a first attempt at a rewrite:
However I am sure someone else can do better than that (which is why I have not changed it in the article myself).
By the way I think this article is extremely well written, informative and at the right level of expertise in general, it's a credit to its editors and to Wikipedia.
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 08:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)ow
Noting the bit about bulbs having fusible lead-in wires to avoid the bulb drawing a large current when the filament fails and an arc is formed, I suspect any current so formed will be less than the current needed to blow a hole in the metal cap when the live lead-in wire breaks freeing one end to make contact with the earthed cap. Perhaps the article can be expanded on the lines that the fuses can be pointless as they themselves can draw a greater current when they fail! I've even photos of such blow-holes in the sides of bulb caps - somewhere.
In march, 2014, in Canada these light bulbs will be phased out. 24.89.95.149 ( talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 86.166.70.84 ( talk) 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made the following changes to the first section of "efficiency and environmental impact"
PAR ( talk) 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This section begins with the statement "Approximately 90% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light ..." This is at odds with the figures in the table below in this section and with the statement in the third paragraph of the introductory section that "most incandescent bulbs convert less than 5% of the energy they use into visible light." I've rewritten the sentence as "Of the power consumed by typical incandescent light bulbs, 95% or more is converted into heat rather than visible light ..." Piperh ( talk) 17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"When used for lighting in houses and commercial buildings, the energy lost to heat can significantly increase the energy required by a building's air conditioning system, although during the heating season such heat is not all wasted, but is not as effective as the heating system." is a very biased characterization of the article cited. The article's author goes on to say "As always, of course, there are some exceptions that may just prove the rule. Most notably, as Paul Wheaton demonstrated in his excellent video on heating the person, not the house, task lighting using an incandescent bulb and a shade/reflector can act as a useful heat lamp, providing heat exactly where it is needed and not warming up the surrounding air. In fact, it's something I'm considering deploying in my own efforts to heat my home office efficiently." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.255.222 ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wanted to edit it by myself, but page is protected. Please edit table "Comparison of efficacy by power" and include 230Volt light bulbs also. So one can compare differences between 120Volt and 230Volt lights sources. Dusan Hlavaty ( talk) 09:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: OK, I was trying to update "Comparison of efficacy by power" table like this: (All values are well known, because these bulbs are typically available in stores. I cannot find any reasonable source for other wattages like 35 Watt, 55 Watt, ...)
120 volt lamps [2] | 230 volt lamps [3] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Power (W) | Output ( lm) | Efficacy (lm/W) | Output ( lm) | Efficacy (lm/W) |
5 | 25 | 5 | ||
15 | 110 | 7.3 | ||
25 | 200 | 8.0 | 206 | 8.24 |
40 | 500 | 12.5 | 330 | 8.25 |
60 | 850 | 14.2 | 584 | 9.73 |
75 | 1,200 | 16.0 | ||
100 | 1,700 | 17.0 | 1,160 | 11.6 |
150 | 2,850 | 19.0 | ||
200 | 3,900 | 19.5 | 2,725 | 13.62 |
300 | 6,200 | 20.7 | 4,430 | 14.77 |
500 | 7,930 | 15.86 |
{{
cn}}
?
Begoon
talk
23:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)How did these references get in, it is obvious they don't belong : ^ "Storey's guide to raising chickens" Damerow, Gail. Storey Publishing, LLC; 2nd edition (12 January 1995), ISBN 978-1-58017-325-4. page 221. Retrieved 10 November 2009. ^ "277 Secrets Your Snake and Lizard Wants you to Know Unusual and useful Information for Snake Owners & Snake Lovers" Cooper,Paulette. Ten Speed Press (1 March 2004), ISBN 978-1-58008-035-4. Page 161. Retrieved 10 November 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.169.113.131 ( talk) 16:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it very curious (and I'm an EE) that efficiency is different for the same wattage bulb at different voltages (designed for that voltage), someone mentioned a reference above so maybe its plausible but an explanation would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.154.48 ( talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
To reply to the question above. I did not know this either, but I think the explanation is hinted at in the text of the article. 110V bulbs have thicker fillaments than 230V ones; this means that it takes longer for the filament to evaporate away and fail if desiged to operate at the same temperature. Alternatively, if the manufacuture designs for a similar lifetime instead, the 110V bulb can be designed for a higher filament temperature, which would mean higher efficiency. There might be an additional smaller effect due to an increased surface area of the thicker filament. Regards 86.157.124.41 ( talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"High-quality halogen incandescent lamps have higher efficacy, which will allow a halogen light to use less power to produce the same amount of light compared to a non-halogen incandescent light."
...would be more correct if 'high quality' removed.
While halogen is higher efficacy, they're mostly used in downlighter spotlight format, which results in much higher power being used for a given lighting job. 86.29.7.158 ( talk) 08:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"Incandescent bulbs also have short lifetimes compared with other types of lighting; around 1000 hours for home light bulbs versus up to 10,000 hours for compact fluorescents and up to 100,000 hours for LED lamps."
ave vs max is a poor comparison. CFL is now ave 10k hrs, LED 20-35khrs
lighting LEDs don't have anywhere near the 50-100,00 hr life of indicator LEDs 86.29.7.158 ( talk) 08:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Carbon filament ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has come up at a discussion at talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 03:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Incandescent light bulb has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The United States Patent Office gave a ruling 8 October 1883, that Edison's patents were based on the prior art of William Sawyer and were invalid. Litigation continued for a number of years. Eventually on 6 October 1889, a judge ruled[citation needed] that Edison's electric light improvement claim for "a filament of carbon of high resistance" was valid.
The court case references above, and where "citation needed" is listed, can be found in "Consol. Elec. Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co, 40 F. 21 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1889) aff'd, 159 U.S. 465, 16 S. Ct. 75, 40 L. Ed. 221 (1895)." 152.33.134.39 ( talk) 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The reference for the sentence "However, later work indicated that initially promising results were in error." should be to this Applied Physics Letters errata: Addendum: “Three-Dimensional Photonic-Crystal Emitter For Thermal Photovoltaic Power Generation” [Appl. Phys. Lett.83, 380 (2003)], available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/86/24/10.1063/1.1941463
It took a fair bit of digging at both the Sandia website and also on archive.org to uncover the actual errata article. Victor Liu ( talk) 18:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a fantastic picture for light bulbs, which pertain to the standard household light bulb you put in a socket. I just don't know where to put it because there is no page for light bulb/s. And not all of these are incandescent, the picture illustrates the progression of technologies of light bulbs. Rarely have I heard of the bulbs themselves called lamps unless you are referring to the small ones used in electronic devices.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M jurrens ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, and its summary: It's not really clear that the primary reason for the lifetime of recent incandescent bulbs has anything to do with the cartel in the 1920's. There is a well-known tradeoff between bulb lifetime on the one hand, and light output and energy efficiency on the other. This article has a whole section on that topic. Manufacturers can make traditional incandescents with as long a life as one wants, but with the inevitable tradeoff that the bulbs would be dim and even more energy inefficient than a typical bulb. The famous centennial bulb has lasted so long partly because its light output is so low. It's a 60 W bulb that puts out about as much light as a 4 W night light.-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
{{edit semi-protected}}
The link marked "more energy-efficient light bulbs" is broken, pointing to a section of the article that was migrated into it's own, namely
"Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs".
Consideration undeserved but impossible to overlook, EOF.
Hamiltonham (
talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Done
My76
Strat
04:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I took out a very old (yet recent enough for copyright to still be an issue) and very possibly outdated graph put here by Skatebiker, who put it right back in. The graph is not labeled properly (are the units on the right y axis hours? who knows?). I also question the right of WP to publish this image copyrighted Kluwer academic publishers in 1945. I am no authority on copyright issues, but Skatebiker's statement on the file page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lightbulb-life.svg implies that he/she released rights? How can that be if quite possibly you never owned the rights in the first place? You work for Kluwer? Please explain? Jack B108 ( talk) 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend that anyone contributing discussions of cost of heating and cost of lighting has references at hand to show the numbers. For example, where I live the tail-block rate for electricity is 6.57 cents Canadian per kwh - certainly among the lowest residential electricity rates on earth. Looking at my November bill, my house used 1110 kwh of electricity and 159.5 cubic metres of natural gas. Reducing the costs (including taxes) to common units shows electricity costs me 8.05 cents/kwh and gas costs 3.69 cents/kwh. I'm better off unscrewing the incandescent lamps and using LEDs or CFLs and burning the extra natural gas in my own high-efficiency furnace, instead of throwing 60% of the heat value away by burning gas in Manitoba Hydro's peaking plants. It's even probably still a win on CO2 emissions, since the electricity I don't use is shipped down to Minneapolis to displace coal-fired generation. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to screw up these pages, but wonder about this change I would propose.
The Section on bases is a little confusing. I would propose that someone put it in sub-sections as the bulb shapes sizes section has: wedge bases, edison screw, filament extended or whatever. I'd lead with edison screw since this is perhaps the most familiar to people--and include the names of the edison screw base sizes (which I have just done.) I felt that putting the sizes here rather than just on the edison screw page was warranted since I believe people may be looking for that information (as I had been), but without the link here would not know where to look. (I had to talk to an actual human at an electric supply place to figure it out, then I was able to use wikip.) Wikikd ( talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could add under; Efficiency and environmental impact table this lamp data
R7s 230V 120W 2250 Lumen 2000h 2900K Reflector ECO Halogen Lamp (Energy rating C) - Luminous efficacy 18,75lm/W
R7s 230V 500W 8000 Lumen 1000h Reflector Halogen Lamp (Energy rating E) - Luminous efficacy 16lm/W
R7s 230V 400W 8600 Lumen 2000h 2700K Reflector ECO Halogen Lamp (Energy rating C)- Luminous efficacy 21,5lm/W
Pyr0Beast ( talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I compared the article with a sibling in another language (German in this case) and I had a time looking for the main section on "Environmental Issues" simply b/c in this article it is titled "Efficiency comparisons" which is, technically, a term of much narrower scope than what the section comprises. I would like to suggest editing the section headline to run "Environmental [and efficacy] Issues" or something the like.
-- 217.229.51.175 ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The information is not correct.
a carbonized bamboo filament, in a vacuum bottle to prevent oxidation
According to information given by himself, he used platinum lead-in wires in an all-glass envelope, and a high vacuum (using the process invented by Torricelli) to prevent disintegration of the carbon made of bamboo. First he used the glass-material of Eau-de-Cologne-Bottles for making his all-glass envelopes, later he used glass-tubes. He used a blowpipe to melt the bottle, but the lamp was never a bottle. Source: United States Circuit Court, District of Massachussets, affidavit Mr. Henry Goebel 21 January 1893, Edison Electric Light vs. Beacon Vaccuum Pump, pages 18-26
Despite a successful recreation of his lamp in 1882,Lewis Latimer demonstrated that the bulbs that Göbel had purportedly built in the 1850s, had actually been built much later, and found the glassblower who had constructed the fraudulent exhibits. In a patent interference suit in 1893, the judge ruled Göbel's claim "extremely improbable".
In the case Edison Electric Light Co. vs. Columbia Incand. Light Co. 182 persons supported the Goebel-Claims and 142 persons supported the Edison view ( Heinrich Goebel never constructed practical lamps earlier than 1880). Approximatly 75 persons confirmed the story of Mr. Goebels telescope in the 1850th at Union Square and the advertisment using electric lamps . A comparable number of Persons never saw electric lights around his telescope at Union Square, New York. You can't establish the truth giving just this one affidavit of a glasblower out of 324 affidavits. In preliminary litigations ( motion for a preliminary injunction) 3 courts ruled for Edison and one against Edison. The opinion of judge Hallett: It is not reasonable to believe that he made the story related in his affidavit, and did not make the lamp he has described. Whatever may be said as to Goebel's veracity, he is supported at many points by witnesses of good repute, who speak with precision, and apparently with deliberation. Unfortunatly there was never a final hearing in these cases because of the expiry of the Edison-patent in 1894. Online-Source: [1]
In 2000-2007 a research project analysed all documents of the case available in National Record Registrations in the USA; in addition research work about the biografy of Heinrich Goebel took place. The dissertation is available as a book: Hans-Christian Rohde: Die Göbel-Legende – Der Kampf um die Erfindung der Glühlampe. Zu Klampen, Springe 2007, ISBN 978-3-86674-006-8 The "Goebel-Defense" was according to the results fraudulent. Lawyers und Mr. Franklin Pope, an early friend of Thomas Edison and later in quarrel with him, were responsible for moving the story into the international press and to construct the extensive "Goebel-Defense" on the base of a story about Heinrich Goebel published by the New York Times in 1882.
Many sources about Heinrich Göbel, mainly based on documents from the USA, are given in Wikipedia Germany/ Heinrich Goebel. [2]
Heinrich Göbel changed his Nationality in 1865 and used from this year the name Henry Goebel.-- 89.204.137.234 ( talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The following statement is made:
...The upper limit to the temperature at which metal incandescent bulbs can operate is the melting point of the metal. Tungsten is the metal with the highest melting point, 3,695 K (6,191 °F)...
Is it the metal with the highest melting point? Are alloys included? I think this statement should be worded more conservatively----something like
...The upper limit to the operating temperature of metal incandescent bulbs is the melting point of the filament. Tungsten has a very high melting point, 3,695 K (6,191 °F) and other favorable properties, so it is used extensively.
IMHO 129.176.151.10 ( talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change "Westminister" to "Westminster" (ie, correct the spelling).
69.128.154.31 ( talk) 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
1000bulbs ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
External link edit request: point to archived page :
[ Light Bulbs - Lamps and Tubes - Lamp Bases Explained{archived copy}
-- User:Guest 20:30, 14 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.3.223 ( talk)
I wonder if you should make it more clear that the LED technology don't produce radio interference by itself. The driving electronic produce this when switching the power (240v AC) to a more suitable level for the LEDs (they need DC at approx a few volts, depending on the model and number of LEDs used).
Dimmers are another source of radio interference, even when driving traditional Light bulbs. A dimmer turns on the light somewhere between the AC peak (both positive and negative period) and ground, causing a current rush. This happens 50 (or 60) times a second.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.21.122 ( talk) 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
reference 3 no longer works as a link to nonsubscribers of it. You should be able to substitute.
97.101.55.118 ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Diogenes
According to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, a potetial featured article has the following attributes:
Also, the criteria say that the article must follow the MoS including:
Starting from the easy ones: - I think it may still be a little long and rambling; - There's lots of pictures. - Needs citations for radio frequenncy interference. - Some sections have no sub-parts, others have many sub-parts. - Yes, there's a lead that gives the "high points" of the article. - There haven't been many big recent changes to the contents. - No-one has flagged any neutrality issues. - Tons of references - Seems to cover the subject comprehensively. - Well-written: Prose needs work, isn't brilliant yet.
-- Wtshymanski ( talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please add link reference for the socket standard article (E10, E14, E27, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davipoyastro ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Reflector Bulb Shapes | Bulb Forming Process | |
---|---|---|
R | side curve bounded by a conic section below the major diameter | 1 |
BR | like the "R" shape but with a neck bulge | 1 |
ER | side curve formed by an elliptical section below the major diameter | 1 |
PAR | side curve formed by a parabolic section below the major diameter | 1 or 2 |
|
-- 75.90.160.210 ( talk) 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
-- 75.90.168.122 ( talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that the table comparing efficacies of light bulbs by power is very nice and informative, however, it will be nicer if it includes 240V lamps as well. Does anyone have a source for the efficacies of 120V lamps or 240V lamps? BloodIce ( talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that this article states a historical resource which states that twenty-two people may have been able to lay claim to inventing the electric bulb prior to Swan and Edison. It has long been my view that of Swan and Thomas Alva Edison, Swan was the true pioneer, as his bulb dates to 1860, predating Edison's bulb, which dates to the 1870s. This information was something I read at school in the Oxford Encyclopaedia. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The Cost of Light
Considering the value of energy savings and lifetime may allow a modest premium over the initial cost of traditional technologies. Life-cycle cost, the effective “cost of light,” can be estimated by including lamp cost, energy consumption and maintenance over a lighting service period. The units used for this lighting service period are dollars per kilolumen-hours ($/klm-hr):
Cost of Light = 1/LampLumens * { (LampCost + LaborCost)/Lifetime + (EnergyUse x EnergyCost) }
Where:
LampLumens = the light output of the lamp measured in lumens
LampCost = the initial cost (first cost) of the lamp in dollars
LaborCost = the labor cost necessary to replace a lamp in dollars
Lifetime = the useful operating life of the lamp, expressed in 1000 hours
EnergyUse = the power consumption of the lamp, expressed in Watts
EnergyCost = the cost of the electricity necessary to operate lamp in $/kWh
By this measure, it can be argued that LED-based illumination is already a viable economic alternative for many applications. For instance, although incandescent lamps have a very low cost and high lumen output compared with LEDs, the LED source has a much longer lifetime and consumes far less power. In fact, using the equation above and looking at a finite quantity of light emission (one million lumen-hours), typical LEDs already have a slightly lower “cost of light” than incandescent and halogen sources today.
Under “History of the light bulb,” there is a passage:
“In 1840, British scientist Warren de la Rue enclosed a coiled platinum filament in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it. The design was based on the concept that the high melting point of platinum would allow it to operate at high temperatures and that the evacuated chamber would contain fewer gas molecules to react with the platinum, improving its longevity. Although an efficient design, the cost of the platinum made it impractical for commercial use.[10][11]”
The two citations both list de la Rue to have created this invention in 1820, yet the article says 1840. This is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmurg69 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The section talking about banning the light bulb has a very political overtone to it (in bold): There has been consumer resistance to phasing out of incandescent lamps, preferring the quality of light produced from incandescents[44], the Libertarian political theory of free markets as somehow precluding national interest as a reason for regulation, and concerns about mercury contamination with CFLs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjstigall ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't early light bulbs use a carbon filament? If so, this phrase from the introduction should be changed to remove the word "metal". -- 77.189.55.229 ( talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
While the Light emitted from florescent lighting can be dangerous to people with light sensitivity disorders, the Mercury inside of every florescent light constitutes a serious health hazard to everyone in the event that the light breaks or cracks. Unlike normal incandecents where no toxic chemicals are released, and LED's where mercury shouldn't be released (although studies have found that some unscrupulous LED makers use small amounts of Mercury in the LED.).
I was given the go-ahead to add some more minor improvements to carbon filament production techniques to the timeline, since it's so incredibly important that we include (only for the sake of political correctness) Lewis Latimer to the timeline. Was the inclusion of other "pioneers" in filament production processes not acceptable? 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
First, this discussion really should go on the talk page of the template, not here.
Second, there are no "moderators". There are "administrators" ("admins"), but they have no particular decision-making authority in content disputes, which is what we have here. Content disputes are usually settled by WP:CONSENSUS. If you want outside help with a content dispute (that is, if you want more people to participate) you would usually first ask for comments on the talk pages of related articles, or of associated Wikiprojects. Other procedures for resolving content disputes are suggested here: WP:DR
Third, a patent does serve as a reference for a claim that "person X got a patent on Y", but it doesn't really establish the importance of Y.
Fourth... Demanding changes to an article (or a template) under threat that you'll make another change if your demands aren't met (as you did ( here), then admitting that your purpose in adding your material was to dilute the apparent importance of material you don't like... that just isn't how things are done here. Jeh ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
User:76.119.76.228 asked me to take a lot at this dispute. Although I have some familiarity with Edison's light bulb (I live in New Jersey, and I did science projects and papers on him in grade school and high school--and hell, I just was just in Fort Lee yesterday, which Edison made motion picture capital of America prior to Hollywood), I am less familiar with the pre-Edison early history of the light bulb in general, and Lewis Latimer in particular. But maybe that'll lend itself to greater objectivity on my part.
The first thing I notice is that this discussion seems like it's on the same topic as "Timeline Edit Request" above. Why are they separate? Can they be merged in order to keep the history of the dispute in one place? Or do the participants here feel that the are distinct in scope?
76.119.76.228, you say you were "given the go-ahead to add some more minor improvements" to the timeline. To whom were you referring that gave you this go-ahead?
Also, 76.119.76.228, you really need to refrain from accusing others of "POV" with little or no evidence to support this. It certainly possible for an editor to take a good faith position in a matter without being motivated by POV. Unless you can exclude all other possible motivators for a given position, it is best to focus on the content of the dispute, and not the editor. Please see WP:AGF.
It is also not in keeping with WP:Civility to refer to another editor's words as a "blob of incoherent text". Looking at Jeh's message, I see nothing incoherent about it, and speaking this way to editors with whom you are involved in a dispute is definitely not the way to get them to see your side of things.
John, you mentioned that it's very repetitive to have half a dozen entries on essentially the same innovation. This makes sense to me, but if I my ask, what is the significance of Latimer's contribution, compared to the others? I know I'm the johnny-come-lately to this, but I'd appreciate if you gave me a primer on this. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize that no-one has the authority to give me the go-ahead, but the go-ahead was regardless given me by Stepho in the "Timeline Edit Request":
"Feel free to edit the article text or the timeline to be consistent. The timeline can be edited at Template:Early evolution of the light bulb . Stepho talk 09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)"
I respectfully retract my "incoherent blob of text" comment. I believe "ridiculous blob of text" would be more accurate; I wasn't attacking the messenger, I was attacking the message:
Jeh had stated "a patent does serve as a reference for a claim that 'person X got a patent on Y', but it doesn't really establish the importance of Y." And the importance (or lack thereof) was precisely my point, which makes the inclusion of those references all the more valid. Those references were being deleted by another editor, and this entire discussion has stemmed from those actions. For User Jeh to diminish the validity of patent numbers as references (after User JohnBlackburne had the nerve to call them "pointless"), and then to use the question of importance as the basis for his argument...well, let's just say it turned me off a bit from receiving WP policy lessons from him (though, admittedly, his points WERE valid and I'm still working out the kinks and trying to adhere.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "easy bake oven toy to household appliances.
99.56.240.174 ( talk) 16:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: If you can find a reference which calls it a household appliance, reopen the request. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
19:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "phase-control triac dimmers" links "triac" to Wikipedia's article on thyristors. Since there's a dedicated article for TRIAC, the link should be changed.
Hmm... Where is Ladygin with his volfram lamp, argon lamp, and patents which was selled to General Electrics on this timeline?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.109.163 ( talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The timeline shows that Lewis Latimer was responsible for "Better Filament Production". However, his contribution to the production techniques of carbon filaments during that time were among hundreds of advancements in carbon filament manufacture. He is mentioned in this articles purely for bias and POV, as Mr. Latimer is cited by many black-supremacy groups as not only being influential to the development of incandescent bulbs, but in some cases cited as having been the actual inventor of the bulb itself.
If his name is not removed from the timeline by 11/10/2011, I will add to the timeline the name of every inventor who holds patents for the manufacture of carbon filaments for the incandescent bulb, since it's so obviously important that we mention Latimer's near-insignificant process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 11:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it's the 11th. I forgot. But later today, I'm going to be doing exactly that - adding at least a dozen inventors names to the timeline for "filament production techniques." Seriously, does no-one have any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The timline is not compatible with the information in the article, For example it says William David Coolage invented Tungston fillement 1910. But in the article it says "On December 13, 1904, Hungarian Sándor Just and Croatian Franjo Hanaman were granted a Hungarian patent (No. 34541)..." Which is not mentioned in the timeline. This is only one example. --upulpp 04:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upulpp( talk • contribs)
The timeline itself contains little information, yet it takes up a huge amount of article space. I do not understand the timeline layout and formatting - would it be possible to float it to the right side of the page so that there could be text alongside it? Where can I find a guide about this kind of information presentation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that source [36] is not related to any document. There's just written the page and the table number, without any other reference. Actually, the sentence it refers to attracts my curiosity as well: isn't all the power converted into heat for a light source? I mean, visible light is a form of radiation transferring heat.. Stefanomoret ( talk) 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Stefano
I'm not a wikipedia expert. I don't understand why I can't edit the main page. Anyway, there's a typo. It says the Phoebus cartel lasted from 1924 until WWI. Obviously it should be WWII. And it's probably worth changing it to "World War Two", with a link.
Fixed. If you register a user ID, you can edit semi-protected pages; sometimes articles get locked out for IP address editors due to vandalism problems. There might be Wikipedia experts out there, but I'm not one either. --
Wtshymanski (
talk)
15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Article says this: "Luminous efficacy of a light source is a ratio of the visible light energy emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the lamp." Flux is a measure of power, not energy. It might be better stated "Luminous efficacy is the ratio of the power of the light emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the lamp." JohnEinNJ ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The chart would help if it included more than incandescents and halogens; why doesn't it contain common fluorescent, compact fluorescent, and LEDs that people may have experience with? I have an LED bulb in my hand that does 54 lm/watt right now. 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That's the big question that makes this a Wikipedia Vital Article, but I believe we're unnecessarily adding confusion here in our article where it doesn't need to be. For instance the way Davy is highlighted with the timeline and the opening paragraphs give him massive undue importance. First, he did not invent or ever make a light bulb, which is the subject of our article. If we want to talk about another subject, the arc light; or we want to discuss the science that preceded the light bulb, then we need to be more clear that Davy was not one of the light bulb inventors. Even then, L. Davis, the author used as a source for Davy, speaking of the arc light (not even a light bulb) actually says that Davy "didn't invent it and never claimed to" (it was Allasandro Volta, 1800). So does Davy even warrant a mention here? At the very least we need to restructure to remove the confusion placing him at the top of light bulb inventors. Our article also needs to be clear that James Bowman Lindsay did in fact invent the first light bulb in 1835, not just an "electric light" as it says, which confuses him with the earlier inventors of non-bulb lights. The facts that 1) he didn't patent or promote it, 2) it was not commercially viable, and 3) it was a very, very short-lived filament... all do not diminish that he invented, built, and described a light bulb in 1835, which is the subject of our article. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 08:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree that the James Bowman Lindsay article also needs to be updated, but because it is a much-less watched page, I wanted these very important changes to be vetted by a wider group first. Didn't want to sneak anything in the back door. ;) I will make sure to add sources that verify his device was used for lighting (reading/writing) and that he did enclose it in glass and discuss it burning without air. When you say that "Many experimenters applied a battery to a piece of iron...", as if it were nothing, we only care here about the first to do that and enclose it in glass for the purpose of lighting. Reliable sources say the Lindsay did that in 1835. No reliable source says that anyone else did it earlier. The independant verification that he invented it is 1) his word printed by public news before anyone else invented or even described it (timing is the main proof, his word is second), and 2) independant published account that the lectures did actually take place where he showed the invention, including dates, times, & location. 3)Many secondary sources establishing he had a light bulb in 1835. The fact that it burned dimly (or any other quality issue) is irrelevant to the question of who first invented the light bulb, except in this case to prove that Lindsay's was not an arc light. Many of the secondary sources give credit to Warren De la Rue in 1820 for inventing the light bulb, following a huge error in Ency Britt. Even our Warren De la Rue page said he did, I just fixed it; you might want to review my edit there. They failed to notice that he would have been only 5 yrs old at the time, lol! I'll try to get these changes done within the week. -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 20:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Right now this
Light bulb redirects to
Incandescent light bulb. I am not sure that this should be the case. In contemporary times worldwide many communities are discouraging some traditional household uses of incandescent light bulbs and encouraging the public to use other kinds of bulbs. I am not sure that the term "light bulb" for most people still refers to an incandescent bulb - I have lived in the United States and India and in both countries many local broad government efforts have for years encouraged people to use fluorescent bulbs, for example.
Could I request comment on creating an article called "Light bulb" which would give general information on
Compact fluorescent lamps and
Incandescent light bulbs? This new article would draw from both of those and take information from
Electric light. The use that I am imagining is that a household could want information about various types of lightbulbs for home use, and the problem which I want to circumvent is the the search of someone seeking a household-use overview for "light bulb", and instead that person gets a history of the originally invented lightbulb rather than information about all contemporary light bulbs.
What is the rationale for having "light bulb" redirect here instead of to its own article or to electric light?
Blue Rasberry
(talk)
14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page on incandescent lightbulbs needs this information added:
"The white powdery substance on the inside of most common household and commercial incandescent bulbs is called Kaolin. Kaolin, or Kaolinite, is a white, chalky clay in a very fine powder form, that is blown in and electrostaticlly deposited on the interior of the bulb. It serves to very effectively diffuse the light emitted from the filament, producing a more gentle and evenly distributed light. Manufacturers are able to vary the thickness, composition and total amount of the kaolin in a bulb in order to adjust the characteristics of the final light emitted from the bulb. Many brands are established around this, notably General Electric's "Reveal" series. Kaolin diffused bulbs are used extensively in interior lighting because of their comparatively gentle light."
The page is semi-protected, and while I am an expert on the subject, I am not a registered user. Just thought I'd make my little contribution here and there. If someone could please add.
Definitive citations (permalink):
http://www.geconsumerandindustrial.com/environmentalinfo/documents/msds/msds_incandescent_lamps.pdf
potential citations:
< http://www.teamdroid.com/diy-hollow-out-a-light-bulb/> & < http://www.geconsumerandindustrial.com/environmentalinfo> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.44.78 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Posted by an anon on WT:ENERGY, posted here on behalf of anon by User:extra999. extra999 ( talk) 08:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the Health Issues section at the end. The problems mention refer to fluorescent bulbs, not incandescents. It seems as if someone was trying to make a point (POV) that CFL bulb light may be harmful to health. That may be so, but it doesn't belong here. I'll check back later, and if no one has objected, I'll delete the section. MarkinBoston ( talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Could somebody with editing rights please review edits by Apteva (currently blocked)? Some edits were genuine link improvements while some were stealth edits changing complete meaning of sentences without any supporting references and, quite frankly, just garbage insertions. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 ( talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is a recent discovery news article on an electricity free light bulb that uses genetically engineered bacteria; would this be the correct article to mention it? [1] CensoredScribe ( talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
A citation is needed for the sentence: "Heat from lights will displace heat required from a building's heating system, but generally space heating energy is of lower cost than heat from lighting." CozmicCharlie ( talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe this is correct, even with the referencte (which I can't check). Is "The eighth patent issued in 1880" meant? I can't believe it was the eigth patent ever issued in the UK, especially later in the section it says the same patentee got Patent 4933 in the same year. Can anyone check this? Si Trew ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
dubious}}
tag for now (it may still be wrong, perhaps we should say 1878 or 1880, but that's a bit weasely). I doubt I could do more or better research than you, so I think it's really your call.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)The last sentence in this section reads:
Now perhaps I am being thick, but the second half of this sentence "while clear bulbs..." just repeats the first part, inverted, and should be cut. But I don't know what is meant by a "standard" bulb is; if "clear" is meant, then it should say so, not say "clear bulb" and "standard bulb" if they mean the same thing (this elegant variation is annulled anyway by the repetition in the second half of the sentence). Similarly I think what are called "soft white" bulbs in the article would be what we call "pearl[escent]" bulbs in the United Kingdom?
Perhaps the article could say e.g. "coated" bulbs instead of "soft white" (or "pearl"), but this is a bit vague since all bulbs are coated in several ways for other reasons. "Pigmented" or "colo[u]red" doesn't seem right either. Other editors have probably got better terminology than I can think of.
SO, may I suggest as a first attempt at a rewrite:
However I am sure someone else can do better than that (which is why I have not changed it in the article myself).
By the way I think this article is extremely well written, informative and at the right level of expertise in general, it's a credit to its editors and to Wikipedia.
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 08:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)ow
Noting the bit about bulbs having fusible lead-in wires to avoid the bulb drawing a large current when the filament fails and an arc is formed, I suspect any current so formed will be less than the current needed to blow a hole in the metal cap when the live lead-in wire breaks freeing one end to make contact with the earthed cap. Perhaps the article can be expanded on the lines that the fuses can be pointless as they themselves can draw a greater current when they fail! I've even photos of such blow-holes in the sides of bulb caps - somewhere.
In march, 2014, in Canada these light bulbs will be phased out. 24.89.95.149 ( talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 86.166.70.84 ( talk) 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made the following changes to the first section of "efficiency and environmental impact"
PAR ( talk) 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This section begins with the statement "Approximately 90% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light ..." This is at odds with the figures in the table below in this section and with the statement in the third paragraph of the introductory section that "most incandescent bulbs convert less than 5% of the energy they use into visible light." I've rewritten the sentence as "Of the power consumed by typical incandescent light bulbs, 95% or more is converted into heat rather than visible light ..." Piperh ( talk) 17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
"When used for lighting in houses and commercial buildings, the energy lost to heat can significantly increase the energy required by a building's air conditioning system, although during the heating season such heat is not all wasted, but is not as effective as the heating system." is a very biased characterization of the article cited. The article's author goes on to say "As always, of course, there are some exceptions that may just prove the rule. Most notably, as Paul Wheaton demonstrated in his excellent video on heating the person, not the house, task lighting using an incandescent bulb and a shade/reflector can act as a useful heat lamp, providing heat exactly where it is needed and not warming up the surrounding air. In fact, it's something I'm considering deploying in my own efforts to heat my home office efficiently." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.255.222 ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wanted to edit it by myself, but page is protected. Please edit table "Comparison of efficacy by power" and include 230Volt light bulbs also. So one can compare differences between 120Volt and 230Volt lights sources. Dusan Hlavaty ( talk) 09:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: OK, I was trying to update "Comparison of efficacy by power" table like this: (All values are well known, because these bulbs are typically available in stores. I cannot find any reasonable source for other wattages like 35 Watt, 55 Watt, ...)
120 volt lamps [2] | 230 volt lamps [3] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Power (W) | Output ( lm) | Efficacy (lm/W) | Output ( lm) | Efficacy (lm/W) |
5 | 25 | 5 | ||
15 | 110 | 7.3 | ||
25 | 200 | 8.0 | 206 | 8.24 |
40 | 500 | 12.5 | 330 | 8.25 |
60 | 850 | 14.2 | 584 | 9.73 |
75 | 1,200 | 16.0 | ||
100 | 1,700 | 17.0 | 1,160 | 11.6 |
150 | 2,850 | 19.0 | ||
200 | 3,900 | 19.5 | 2,725 | 13.62 |
300 | 6,200 | 20.7 | 4,430 | 14.77 |
500 | 7,930 | 15.86 |
{{
cn}}
?
Begoon
talk
23:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)How did these references get in, it is obvious they don't belong : ^ "Storey's guide to raising chickens" Damerow, Gail. Storey Publishing, LLC; 2nd edition (12 January 1995), ISBN 978-1-58017-325-4. page 221. Retrieved 10 November 2009. ^ "277 Secrets Your Snake and Lizard Wants you to Know Unusual and useful Information for Snake Owners & Snake Lovers" Cooper,Paulette. Ten Speed Press (1 March 2004), ISBN 978-1-58008-035-4. Page 161. Retrieved 10 November 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.169.113.131 ( talk) 16:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it very curious (and I'm an EE) that efficiency is different for the same wattage bulb at different voltages (designed for that voltage), someone mentioned a reference above so maybe its plausible but an explanation would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.154.48 ( talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
To reply to the question above. I did not know this either, but I think the explanation is hinted at in the text of the article. 110V bulbs have thicker fillaments than 230V ones; this means that it takes longer for the filament to evaporate away and fail if desiged to operate at the same temperature. Alternatively, if the manufacuture designs for a similar lifetime instead, the 110V bulb can be designed for a higher filament temperature, which would mean higher efficiency. There might be an additional smaller effect due to an increased surface area of the thicker filament. Regards 86.157.124.41 ( talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"High-quality halogen incandescent lamps have higher efficacy, which will allow a halogen light to use less power to produce the same amount of light compared to a non-halogen incandescent light."
...would be more correct if 'high quality' removed.
While halogen is higher efficacy, they're mostly used in downlighter spotlight format, which results in much higher power being used for a given lighting job. 86.29.7.158 ( talk) 08:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"Incandescent bulbs also have short lifetimes compared with other types of lighting; around 1000 hours for home light bulbs versus up to 10,000 hours for compact fluorescents and up to 100,000 hours for LED lamps."
ave vs max is a poor comparison. CFL is now ave 10k hrs, LED 20-35khrs
lighting LEDs don't have anywhere near the 50-100,00 hr life of indicator LEDs 86.29.7.158 ( talk) 08:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Carbon filament ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has come up at a discussion at talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 ( talk) 03:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Incandescent light bulb has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The United States Patent Office gave a ruling 8 October 1883, that Edison's patents were based on the prior art of William Sawyer and were invalid. Litigation continued for a number of years. Eventually on 6 October 1889, a judge ruled[citation needed] that Edison's electric light improvement claim for "a filament of carbon of high resistance" was valid.
The court case references above, and where "citation needed" is listed, can be found in "Consol. Elec. Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co, 40 F. 21 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1889) aff'd, 159 U.S. 465, 16 S. Ct. 75, 40 L. Ed. 221 (1895)." 152.33.134.39 ( talk) 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The reference for the sentence "However, later work indicated that initially promising results were in error." should be to this Applied Physics Letters errata: Addendum: “Three-Dimensional Photonic-Crystal Emitter For Thermal Photovoltaic Power Generation” [Appl. Phys. Lett.83, 380 (2003)], available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/86/24/10.1063/1.1941463
It took a fair bit of digging at both the Sandia website and also on archive.org to uncover the actual errata article. Victor Liu ( talk) 18:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a fantastic picture for light bulbs, which pertain to the standard household light bulb you put in a socket. I just don't know where to put it because there is no page for light bulb/s. And not all of these are incandescent, the picture illustrates the progression of technologies of light bulbs. Rarely have I heard of the bulbs themselves called lamps unless you are referring to the small ones used in electronic devices.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M jurrens ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, and its summary: It's not really clear that the primary reason for the lifetime of recent incandescent bulbs has anything to do with the cartel in the 1920's. There is a well-known tradeoff between bulb lifetime on the one hand, and light output and energy efficiency on the other. This article has a whole section on that topic. Manufacturers can make traditional incandescents with as long a life as one wants, but with the inevitable tradeoff that the bulbs would be dim and even more energy inefficient than a typical bulb. The famous centennial bulb has lasted so long partly because its light output is so low. It's a 60 W bulb that puts out about as much light as a 4 W night light.-- Srleffler ( talk) 01:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)