Talk:Incandescent light bulb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A story relating to the article Incandescent light bulb (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject on Electronics This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Tungsten filament

In 1906, the General Electric Company was the first to patent a method of making tungsten filaments for use in incandescent light bulbs.

Wasn't this patent bought from Lodygin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.194.102 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It was...see http://www.geocities.com/s_fedosov/history/texno.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.179.188 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference cited by 92.255.179.188 is to Geocities, a service which hosts peoples personal webpages, and therefore does not appear to constitute a reliable source. The material is in Russian, which further makes it hard to examine for most Wikipedia editors. Is there a source in English which states what patent Logygin got, from what country, and when, with images and text? Is there a reference which says GE bought that patent? Even if GE bought that patent, they patented their own process for making exteremely thin tungsten filaments via new processes. It would not be possible to buy someone's old patent and then "repatent" it and somehow extend the trerm of patent protection. Did GE sell tungsten bulbs which said they were produced under a Lodygin patent? This sounds suspiciously like a case of someone dabbling in a technology without success, then when someone else later makes a breakthrough and advances the art, claiming that the earlier experimenter "really invented it." This claim should not be in the article without verification through reliable sources. Edison (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the alternative

I have fluerescent lights everywhere in my home, *except* my room. Because i work all the time with the computer and look at the monitor, and fluerescent lights make my eyes ake and makes them wet when i look at the monitor 10 minutes or more. Yes i tried to replace light bulb in my room with fluerescent light already so many times. Yes the vertical frequency is the highest, 80 hz, yes the monitor is lcd. But why no one thinks about the simple fact that the fluerescent lights flicker, and the monitor screen flickers as well, and together they generate much more intensive and lower frequency flickering, while banning light bulbs or advocating against them. When they ban light bulbs in EU, would there be any possibility for me to get a light which doesn't flicker? Are there any alternatives, or anyone even ever thought about it? Are there some special lights which are made to flicker less? I think these concerns have to be mentioned in the article for it to be neutral point of view, instead of writing there only the fluerescent lights advocacy, that the light bulbs would be eventually replaced with the flurescent lights, and this is only good. Please consider that, thank you.--Tkorrovi 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Tkorrivi, There are other bulbs, known as LED bulbs that are somewhat expensive, but last longer than cfls (Also known as fluorescent bulbs) and use less energy. But, these bulbs do not produce as much light. N:vision cfl's do not flicker. (At least, I think so.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.211.132 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humphry vs. Humphrey

When I reverted the Nickroxvote3 vandalism, I used "Humphrey" Davy for the spelling, but that was later changed to Humphry. I only came by because Nickroxvotex vandalized one of the sites I monitor so I was curious about what he did here. I also got curious about this Davy guy and did some Googling on him and noted that his named was spelled as Humphrey here and there, which is why I ended up spelling it that way. Whatever. Just some FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Both spellings were used often during the lifetime of Humphry/Humphrey Davy. Check Google books and you can find both spellings in published works from his time. It is puzzling why the two spellings were both used. One may have been the English version of a Welsh spelling or some such. Edison (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics Section II: Just banned in Ireland

Hi, I just googled to find out exactly what an 'incandescent bulb' [as opposed to "a bulb"!] is as they have just been banned in Ireland, and I read the above discussion. So here are the links confirming their banning in Ireland last week. Greenpeace wanted the ban to start in 2010 [1] but the Irish government is banning them from 2009. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/article3229273.ece; http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/ireland-legislates-to-ban-inefficienct-light-bulbs-by-2009-20071206; http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0712/S00420.htm; 213.202.170.60 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Ireland now the first state to ban incandescent bulbs? 213.202.170.60 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swan's birthplace

Someone changed the text recently to say Swan was born in "Sunderland, England" rather than "Sunderland, United Kingdom." What is the preferred usage? Is the present like saying someone was born in "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" rather than "Philadelphia, United States?" No strong feelings on this, but input from Brits or Manual of Style wonks appreciated. Edison (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Most people this side of the pond would say they were born in England/Scotland/Wales etc or possibly in Britain. The UK is a political construction which has varied in extent, has only existed in its present form since the 1920s, and could disappear in the future if devolution progresses to independence for Scotland, Wales etc. Our governments have always like fiddling with boundaries: Swan was born in Bishopwearmouth, which is now part of Sunderland. Both were then in County Durham, but are now officially in Tyne and Wear. Pterre (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This gets us into another srea of uncertainty: should we use the then-used name of the town, which you say is Bishopwearmouth, rather than Sunderland? And do you go along with calling it Bishopwearmouth, England, or should we have a middle term to state what county etc it was in? Where did Swan himself say he was born? Maybe discussion of his birthplace belongs in his own article and not in the Incandescent light bulb article. Edison (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, overlooked your reply somehow. I would personally go for "Bishopwearmouth (then in County Durham), England". Pterre (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vitrit

A diagram in this article identifies insulation at the base of a lightbulb as "vitrit". What is this stuff? A Google search brings up nothing, other than a site that requires you to pay to access it, which identifies it as a mineral:

http://www.mindat.org/min-23479.html

These links seem to be associating it with coal:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/102_1/03_class.html

http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/Therapies/Germanium/b7.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.126.158 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 December 2007

Response copied from Wikipedia Reference Desk: Miscellaneous: :::"The Electrical Engineer" for Oct. 25, 1889 p 322 [2] talks about the "Vitrite Company" as making the insulating glass used in the base of light bulbs. I find a description of the base of the bulb, inside the brass screw-form base, being filled with "vitrite" in pp 68-69 of "Electricity in Mining" By Sydney Ferris Walker, Van Nostrand, New York, 1907, viewable at Google Books [3] . Before vitrite, porcelein was used, and before that plaster of paris, which absorbed moisture and which crumbled from the heat. Vitrite is described in "A Dictionary of Chemistry and the Allied Branches of Other Sciences" By Henry Watts (1869)as another name for vitrinopal, "a matrix of Bohemian pyrope, related to pitchstone, and being 83.72% silica, 3.58% ferric oxide, 7.57% lime, .67% magnesia, and 11.46% water. Unfortunately this adds up to 107%. The 1911 Britannica article on electric lamps [4] calls it "vitrite." Numerous other sources found from Google Book search spell it "vitrite." I have corrected the spelling in the Incandescent light bulb article. Edison (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lower resistance = higher wattage/higher output?

I wish this article had a little more on the physics of the light bulb. I came to it hoping to solve something. It's common knowledge of course that electricity running through the resistance of the filament causes the filament to get so hot it glows. So the resistance is what makes it work. But then it seems to me, from Ohm's law, that for a given voltage, a lower resistance would pass more current, and therefore the device would operate at a higher power. So it would seem that to get more light output, you'd use a filament with a lower resistance. It's a paradox I've been wondering about for some time. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Why is this a paradox to you? What part of P=V2/R is troubling you? Is it not intuitive that if the "resistance" is less, more "something" will be let through and more "stuff" will happen? If not, I'm not sure that an encyclopedia article can dispel the perceived paradox. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, it could seem a little counter-intuitive without the math (if someone doesn't know or understand it). We read, in this article for instance, that a light bulb works because electricity is put through a resistance; it has to do work to get through (in elementary terms), so it gets hot and glows. One could think, the more resistance, the more work, ergo the hotter it must get. But then when you plug in the math, it turns out to be more or less the other way around.
And that would be so for any heating element, as well. I'm not sure that really puzzled me so much as it kind of startled me when I first figured it out. Maybe I wanted some confirmation/validation from an authority (if Wikipedia counts as an authority).
But then, it seems to me that the unsophisticated could ask--what about a filament then with almost no resistance? What if you just take a bit of the wire that supplies the light fixture and put that into the bulb as the filament? I suppose that all this must work up to a point. And that point would be somewhere when the resistance of the filament gets to be so low that it compares to the resistance of the supply wires (and the supply wires would always have some). In that case, the voltage drop through the supply wires--which normally we'd overlook--would start to be significant; the work would be done over the whole system, and filament and supply would start getting hot.
If I have this all right, then it might be worth mentioning that, although an incandescent light bulb works by passing electricity through a filament with a resistance, a lower resistance leads--perhaps paradoxically--to a higher power light bulb. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
The usual relationship applies: you can suck the maximum amount of power out of the power supply if the load resistance (impedance) matches the source resistance (impedance). Practically, this doesn't work, of course, for mains power circuits because power systems have very low source impedance and the maximum amount of power that they can supply far exceeds the ratings of the various circuit breakers and fuses that the power flows through on its way to our hypothetical lamp. Thus, our lamp always operates on that side of the load impedance versus power parabola where reduced resistance leads to higher power being disspiated in the load.
Atlant (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Wtshymanski, please don't be offended that I fixed the superscript in your answer. That said, I notice that your mathematical definition doesn't appear in the article. I'm thinking maybe it should. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

[edit] Woodward and Evans

[5] Contains a reprint of "Invention of the Incandescent Lamp", Electrical World and Engineer, Vol 35, No 15, Apr 14, 1900, pg 540" which cites predecessors of Woodword and Evans who had superior lamps, and debunks some of the claims made for their priority. I am still trying to figure out the significance of the claim that "Edison bought their patent then patented his bulb." Thisoft-repeated claim makes little sense. If his patent were the same as an earlier patent, then competing and infringing manufacturers would have cited that fact in the litigation, which Edison eventually won, and they would not have been counting down the days until his patent expired. You don't buy a patent from someone then repateent it and claim it is your own. Edison (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the artice, Lamp (electical component) and there is a little information that I'd like to add to this article. Where the article states: "The same year, Canadians Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans", I will add: ",working for the Morrison’s Brass Foundry on Adelaide St., West Toronto, Canada" and at the end will amend it to say "obtained a US patent for their light bulb," so in full it will read:

"The same year, Canadians Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans, ,working for the Morrison’s Brass Foundry on Adelaide St. West Toronto, Canada, obtained a US patent for their light bulb."

Within the Lamp (electrical component) article, there is a rather subjective section entitled 'A Brief History' which, whilst not suitable for an encyclopedia, does contain a line or two of useful information. If there is a better wording that anyone can thing of, please don't hesitate. I'm still rather new to editing documents on Wiki, especially in a scientific article. Daniel-James 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] heat output

I've corrected 90-95% heat output statement to 98%. See the table already in the article, which already confirms this figure.

I also removed the existing reference http://www.homefamily.net/index.php?/categories/consumersmarts/light_bulb_energy_efficiency/ because it is

  1. wrong
  2. not a suitable reference: it is a simple non-technical piece containing elementary mistakes.

Tabby (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference you deleted cites a Canadian government site [6] for the 5 to 8% figure. Such a source is not so easily dismissed as that for being "wrong," i.e. not agreeing with your opinions. You 2% efficiency figure is lower than some credible sites state. Edison (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
The article now claims 10% efficiency, based on "Incandescent Lamps" publication TP-110, General Electric, Nela Park, 1964. This is higher efficiency than other sources I have seen. This publication is not easy to obtain. Is there a credible online source which has this high an efficiency claim? Edison (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
TP-110 says 10% visible radiation, 90% various infrared radition, conductive and convection heat transfer. I think the lower efficiency value comes from comparing a white light source to the theoretical 683 lumens/watt at peak sensitivity of the human eye at 555 nm. I believe this to be an incorrect basis for comparison since no-one wants a house lit by monochromatic green light. I'm trying to find a good equivalent for the luminous efficacy of white light but I've seen several different figures from 230 lumens/watt to 300 and higher. I'll have to check the IES handbook at the office to see if I can get a definitive value. (It's too bad someone named Edison doesn't have good access to the GE publications - although TP 110 is quite old, it's standard in any set of GE product catalogs.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Edison wrote: "The reference you deleted cites a Canadian government site [6] for the 5 to 8% figure. Such a source is not so easily dismissed as that for being "wrong," i.e. not agreeing with your opinions."

If you want to cite the CDN govt site, then great, but citing the article with basic errors I removed is not a step toward the solution, as that sort of material is not fit for citation. It is neither correct, accurate, scientific, nor written with any particular care for the facts. I don't know if we'll agree on that, but I hope at least you appreciate why I removed it, and why others likely will in future if reinstated. Tabby (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an inconsistancy in the article between the "10%" light 90% heat" for incandescent lamps and the later reference to "9% efficiency" for halogen lamps, which was recently modified to 25%. If we are still thinking about the ratio of light to heat 25% is impossible. I believe 9% for (the best) halogen lamps is about right and the GE reference to "approximately 10 % is rather optimistic for ordinary domestic lamps. A 120V 100W at 17 l/w corresponds to a colour temperature of 2900K . A black body at this CT has 5% in the visible. For 9% the CT would need to be about 3200K. Tungsten filaments are not perfect black bodies, generally giving slightly more light, but my figures indicate roughtly the comparison. The figures in the table for efficiency, related to the perfect conversion to light aren't very relevent for other than academics and probably just cause confusion. (Redcliffe92 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] more

The diagram lacks ballotini fuses

GLS filament lighting is normally 2700K Tabby (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Patent reference to ballotini fuses added to the article.(Redcliffe92 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] link/inclusion of Edison screw

As there is a section on the Edison screw type socket, we should probably include a reference to Edison_screw which as an overview. Alternatively, Edison_screw could be merged with this article (which is getting very long). Moaltmann (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge! All the Edison Screw stuff can be moved to that article...only the most patient of readers is going thorough 50+ kB. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International wiki, not US wiki

I've rephrased US policy to international, as the US only accounts for 5% of the world population.

/* Luminous efficacy and efficiency */ Most -> Some safety codes. Most is unrealistic for a worldwide wiki, even among the wealthier countries only some do.

Same applies to mandatory use of LEDs in emergency escape signs, here in UK we usually use fluorescent, claiming LEDs are mandatory does not describe the world situation factually.

If someone is going to revert this to describing only US practices, please give us all a good reason here. Tabby (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gas filling

In the description of Lamp Construction it is stated "filled with an inert gas to reduce evaporation of the filament and reduce the required strength of the glass". I do not believe "reduce the required strength of the glass" is correct. During manufacture the gas filling is introduced at just below, or even above atmospheric pressure. When the lamp is lit its pressure will rise, so the glass envelope will be under tension. Converesely, in a vacuum lamp it will be under compression. Glass fails under tension, not compression. Even with a wall thickness on 0.7mm in places the bulb is very strong, and bursting is not an issue, (unless it receives a thermal shock). Gas filling does create higher temperatures on the bulb, particulary where the convection stream from the filament reaches it. This has to be taken into consideration when sizing the lamp, for example to keep the base temperature within limits. Does anyone object to the removal of "and reduce the required strength of the glass" ? (Redcliffe92 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)) No comment, so deletion made. (Redcliffe92 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Ohmic?

No comment on the article. But inviting opinions on whether the lightbulb is an ohmic resistor. I will keep my opinion to myself for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.49.65 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The resistance of tungsten is temperature dependent,with a posative coefficant, but this does not mean it is not ohmic. The cold resistance of gasfilled lamps is about one fifteenth of the hot resistance, higher for higher efficacy lamps. Carbon has a negative coefficient. (Redcliffe92 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm wary of definitions but if you define "ohmic" as "having a voltage drop linearly proportional to current over some reasonable range" then of course, no, the tungsten filament lamp is not an "ohmic" resistor. But what does this hard-won knowledge gain for us?

--Wtshymanski (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When does tungsten burn?

Can someone fill me in on the details of tungsten oxidation in air? See Talk:Tungsten#At_what_temperature_does_tungsten_burn. — Omegatron 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banning Incandescent Bulbs

Why is it considered preferable to use fluorescents, when they contain mercury? Granted incandescents use more power, which is bad for the environment, but isn't mercury worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.114.131 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

While it's good to go back in the edit history to make sure you've caught all the vandalism, it's probably not a good idea to rewind the article from May 15 back to February 28. It's necessary to keep the good edits as well as getting rid of the bad. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are those really incandescent flood lamps?

Great picture but I'd be surprised if these were actually incandescent lamps; though some of them do look a little orange in the picture. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[7] says it is a "metal halide lighting system." That makes it a gas discharge lighting system and not incandescent lamps. Therefore I am removing the picture from this article. Edison (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Amazing the stuff you can find on the Web. Thanks for checking that out ( I thought we were going to have to wait for a Texas WIkipedian baseball fan...could be a while). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, if the picture is in the wrong place, why not simply move it to the appropriate page? — BQZip01 — talk 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And what's stopping you? WP:be Bold and all that. If you find a place where it provides value to the encyclopedia, go ahead. But remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the world's photo album. Pictures must illustrate the topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I already did it while you were typing a response. My point is that there is a deletionist attitude with some contributors ("That isn't in the right place. I'll remove it from Wikipedia") when the material could simply be moved from one place to another and still provide useful information/illustration even when the original material was simply in the wrong place. A single article is not Wikipedia and contributing to the entire encyclopedia would be better. — BQZip01 — talk 16:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A much better place for the halide lighting picture. Thus the Encyclopedia grows. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead of criticizing a perceived "deletionist attitude" you might remember that this is not a shoebox full of photographs. It is an encyclopedia. If a photo does not contribute to an article, it should be removed. It is not the responsibility of the editor removing an inappropriate photo from an article to place it somewhere else, since not every snapshot someone creates even has a proper place in an encyclopedia. This one really does not illustrate anything; it is just a randon, generic and fungible bank of lightbulbs in reflectors, which could be of any sort at any time. Edison (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was a shoebox of photos. I never said the photo shouldn't have been removed from this article, but merely that the photo in question could have been moved to another page. If you will look at the page where this photo currently resides, it does indeed show the differences in color as the lighting warms up. I never said it was your responsibility to do anything, but merely to suggest an alternative form of action that might benefit us all. — BQZip01 — talk 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for the differing color appearance illustrating something special about the halide lamps, or is that conclusion original research? And you are quite right that a given illustration would ideally be used in any articles where it is helpful, whether or not it is used in this article. For the halide lamp article I would prefer more of a closeup; it still sems more illustrative of a bank of lamps than of anything unique to halide lamps. Edison (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is an illustration of the color difference elaborated upon in the text. — BQZip01 — talk 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo would fit well in Floodlights (sport) -JWGreen (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nitrogen

Nitrogen is sometimes used as a fill gas in light bulbs. See Britannica online [8] and the IEE site on light bulbs [9]. The article said neon and argon were used, without mentioning nitrogen. Edison (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)