• mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think we have been able to manufacture sturdier incandescent bulbs for a long time. The “rough service” bulbs made for appliances do pretty well, for example.

    I’m not sure why the technology didn’t become common. I would guess that cheap and frequently replaced bulbs making more profit probably has something to do with it.

    • ch00f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is largely a myth. Higher wattage bulbs burn out faster, but they also operate more efficiently. Bulbs are fairly cheap, but electricity is expensive.

      During ordinary operation, the tungsten of the filament evaporates; hotter, more-efficient filaments evaporate faster.[115] Because of this, the lifetime of a filament lamp is a trade-off between efficiency and longevity.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

      For more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I guess you’re implying that rough service bulbs use more power at any given light output? Because I know from experience that they are much more sturdy than typical household bulbs. That’s not a myth.

        • ch00f@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Rough service bulbs live longer in environments with high amounts of physical stress, temperature variation, and vibration. They don’t live longer in general.

          The lifespan of an incandescent is dictated by the evaporation rate of tungsten and directly related to the wattage.