Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Edison Would Have Loved New Light Bulb Law, Says His Great-Grandson

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the free-to-disagree dept.

United States 473

New submitter futuristic writes with a link to Thomas Edison's great-grandson's take on Thomas Edison and the alleged demise of the incandescent light bulb. From the article: "My great grandfather's 100-watt incandescent will be replaced with new energy-efficient versions, including CFLs, LEDs, and — yes — new and improved incandescent bulbs. ... And my great-grandfather wouldn't have it any other way."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38551892)

Really?

Re:FP? (4, Interesting)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551930)

Really?

Chances are he would have held one or more patents on the new light bulb so it would have been a source of income for him.

Re:FP? (5, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552234)

    Heh. That's pretty much what I was going to say.. If he had the patent(s) on it, he'd praise it as the best thing since ... well ... the light bulb. If he didn't, he'd be pushing all the reasons that it was horrible and dangerous.

    That's the way he played.. Otherwise, we would be praising the successor to the Joseph Swan light bulb.

    Patents are a bitch, and Edison was the original patent troll.

Re:FP? (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552056)

He'd be shocking animals to death with the new lightbulbs [wikipedia.org] , suing Westinghouse and Tesla and everyone else, and in general acting like any other a$$hole - because that's what he was, and that's what he did, as well as cheating Tesla out of $$$ - all putting the "Con" in "Con Edison."

Re:FP? (4, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552372)

    Actually, that would have been "Consolidated Edison" eventually shortened to "ConEd". Otherwise, you're absolutely right. How much did he cheat the world from, by not funding Tesla? We'll never know.

    Well, unless the conspiracy theory that Tesla managed to make himself immortal, and moved to Argentina to pursue high energy experiments for gravity control and space travel are true. I kid you not, I picked up a really good book on Tesla. The last two chapters went into this wild conspiracy stuff. What an awful way to ruin a really informative book. I was under the distinct impression that the publishers read the first few chapters, and confirmed the facts, but no on bothered to read the whole thing before it went to press.

Re:FP? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552470)

No he became a vampire and moved to Canada to become an actor - wouldn't you if you had a chance of a snog with Amanda tapping ;-)

Bullshit (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38551898)

Absolute bullshit. As much as any sensible man should support the new lightbulb law, Edison was *not* a sensible man. All you need to know to figure out his stance on old outdated technology versus new, superior technology is this: DC vs. AC, Edison vs. Tesla.

Re:Bullshit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38551914)

It isn't old vs new technology, it was where he could make the most. I'm sure he'd love the new laws....if he could make a buck from them.

Re:Bullshit (2)

sd4f (1891894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551924)

It isn't old vs new technology, it was where he could make the most. I'm sure he'd love the new laws....if he could make a buck from them.

Well, wouldn't anyone love laws where they can make money from them!

Re:Bullshit (0, Offtopic)

blue trane (110704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552416)

Doesn't Warren Buffet want to change the tax laws so he makes less money?

Re:Bullshit (-1, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551934)

DC is superior for efficiency and safety, you're the one full of bullshit

Re:Bullshit (1)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551966)

Transistors were not invented when Tesla proposed AC. Hence at that time it was -by far- more efficient.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38551970)

Yeah, after all Edison showed [wired.com] how this dangerous AC electricity killed an elephant. The government knew this and chose AC anyway! We're all doomed!

Re:Bullshit (5, Insightful)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551978)

You mean Washington, DC? Because you can't do half of the things with direct current that are possible with AC. And I don't mean Anonymous Cowards. AND DC is in fact way more dangerous than AC, especially if the AC frequency is very high.

Re:Bullshit (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552070)

Yep, that's why every single device in my house has an AC/DC converter, to convert that superior AC to something that they can actually fucking use.

Puts out a ton of waste heat in the process too, although since it's winter now, I suppose that's just as well.

Re:Bullshit (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552140)

Yep, that's why every single device in my house has an AC/DC converter, to convert that superior AC to something that they can actually fucking use.

Puts out a ton of waste heat in the process too, although since it's winter now, I suppose that's just as well.

The AC/DC converters to your electronics are where you're spending most of your energy, huh? Do you have those hooked up to your fridge? Air Conditioner? Washer and Dryer?

AC power is the way to go power large motors. you don't need a commutator. Brushless DC motors are actually AC motors, btw, they need an inverter.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552144)

Yep, that's why every single device in my house has an AC/DC converter, to convert that superior AC to something that they can actually fucking use.

That includes heaters and light bulbs, I presume?

Re:Bullshit (5, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552218)

You mean, my light bulbs composed of LEDs? Yes, they're DC.

Re:Bullshit (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552560)

with huge ass AC/DC converters in the base that get so hot they need to have heat sinks on them that are larger than the LED...thus, your LED bulb is AC powered...just like my PC.

Re:Bullshit (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552262)

1) The power wouldn't even _get_ to your house without being wasted on the way if it were DC

2) For things actually needing much power, you use AC anyway and don't convert to DC.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552400)

Also the above statements is FUD. Please read were DC is currently used, one example is deep sea lines. Using AC in the sea is basically impossible. In and around the house: what about the solar panels on the roof, all DC, relatively low voltage (24V), not wasted at all. For some application the AC out of the outlet isn't stable enough, and is first made kinectic and then converted back. There are good uses for AC, there are also for DC.

Re:Bullshit (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552616)

Hmm... running power 300 miles versus running it from your roof... Yep... those are totally equivalent.

Well these days there's a lot of be said for DC (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552166)

But only because we've got technology they didn't back then. When it comes to long distance transmission, voltage is key because of Ohms law. The more current you have the bigger your conductor has to be to prevent loss.

Well transformers can easily and quite efficiently step up and down AC voltage. So you can have hundreds of thousands of volts, far more than you'd want in a home, over a distribution line. There was no equivalent technology for DC back when the current wars were going on.

Now there is, thyristors. They are solid state devices that do a good job of efficient DC-DC conversion. So it is possible today to do HVDC lines and indeed it is done. There are some advantages (like no skin effect).

Prior to that the best there was is mercury arc valves. Those worked and were used, but had some serious limits. Even then, they didn't come on the scene until about the 1920s, and the current wars were back in the 1880s.

So sure, if we redesigned the grid today, maybe DC would make sense, however there are some things that AC works really well for. Thing is, we didn't design it today, we designed it in the 1800s and back then, AC was it. Edison's DC plan called for there to be generators all over the place since long runs were out of the question. That is a shitty way to do things, not only because you don't want generators in your neighborhood but because as with many things, generators scale with efficiency in terms of size.

Re:Well these days there's a lot of be said for DC (5, Interesting)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552268)

HVDC is OK.

DC for homes is not - it's quite difficult to arc-proof a switch for 110/220VDC. In the late 1930's, when DC was being phased out here in Australia a couple of relatives of mine experienced arcs in DC light switches that progressed out of the switch and up the cabling feeding them. Only way to stop them was to go and find the next breaker upstream.....

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552042)

You're trolling right?

True that was Edison's argument, and he invented the electric chair (only possible with AC) to prove its dangers. However transformers I don't believe were invented back then, high frequency AC I would say is a lot safer than DC.

Re:Bullshit (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552230)

Transformers were invented back then - that is why AC had the advantage. The big technological proponent of AC was Tesla who (In between contributing to our modern image of the Mad Scientist by electrifying the atmosphere of an entire planet) designed the foundation upon which the national grid would be built. He knew transformers. He invented a whole new type of transformer, and called it a Tesla coil.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552054)

Iggy Manz, not a smart man. Iggy Manz, not a smart man.

Try learning about power transmission and don't stay so focused on the DC needed for little transistors.

Again, let's sing: Iggy Manz, not a smart man. Iggy Manz, not a smart man.

It has a ring and it's true. NOW SUCK ROOTS!!!

Re:Bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552096)

It's exceptionally inefficient when transmitted over long distances (unless you have some use for the waste heat), and three phase AC motors are some of the most efficient motors, especially for very high horsepower applications.

Re:Bullshit (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552200)

Providing you don't want to send it any significent distance. Doing so was impossible back then, and even today it's a lot easier to just use a simple transformer than mess around with efficient solid-state voltage conversion.

Re:Bullshit (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552484)

Only for short ranges and relatively low power levels - that's why old time phone engineers have funny stories about amusing mishaps with the DC plant in exchanges.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551940)

Thenew law is a menace - where you only require the light for a short period, infrequently, incandescent is the right answer!

Re:Bullshit (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551990)

So then get an incandescent. The law does not forbid them. It just requires that they be efficient.

Re:Bullshit (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552244)

The efficiency standard is too strict for plain, old incandescents to meet. You can use halogen lamps though, which have all the same advantages, being essentially just incandescents with a few improvements.

Re:Bullshit (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552068)

Not from an energy usage point of view. Please give at least one example.

Re:Bullshit (2)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552160)

Not this person's point, but one situation that I still haven't had seen a reasonable replacement for is dimmable bulbs. Despite the advertising, I have yet to see a dimmable fluorescent bulb, I've seen several that claim to be, but none that either fit in a real light fixture, or actually dim. The only LED bulbs I've seen in the stores so far also do not dim. So for now the only way to have control over the amount of light put out by your light fixtures is to use incandescent bulbs.

Re:Bullshit (5, Informative)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552280)

Incandescent technology isn't being banned, just being pushed to evolve a little. If you need to dim look for 29, 43, 53, and 72, watt halogen bulbs. These replace 40, 60, 75, and 100 watt standard bulbs respectively and comply with the new law. These are marketed under the Eco Smart brand by Phillips, Super Saver by Sylvania (Made in USA too), GE also sell them. These are more pricey than standard bulbs and the Sylvaina ones are 1/4 inch less in diameter, but are a suitable replacement.

Re:Bullshit (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552296)

i happened to be looking at light bulbs at Home Depot today and saw at least a couple of LED's labeled "Dimmable". Too bad the $15 price for the smallest bulb ($38 for an indoor flood!) sent me moving on down the aisle to bad old incandescents. So, they are out there, can't testify to how well they dim though.

Re:Bullshit (5, Informative)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552412)

Dimmable CFLs do work, (they're used in nearly all LCD monitors, other than those that now use dimmable LEDs). Neither is as simple as a dimmable incandescent, but they are available and they do work. However, dimmers designed for incandescent bulbs are not optimal [wikipedia.org] for CFL or LED lights. Your best option to replace incandescent bulbs in dimming fixtures are the newer, more efficient incandescent or halogen bulbs, or replace both the dimmer and the bulbs.

BTW, only standard bulbs are affected by the new regulations, specialty bulbs (e.g. "decorator", "teardrop", "sconce", etc.) are not affected. These are the types of bulbs most frequently used with dimmers.

I never said there aren't valid uses for incandescent bulbs (particularly halogen bulbs), I only challenged the OPs statement, and I fully expect him to fail to provide a single valid example that justifies his statement.

Re:Bullshit (1, Informative)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552258)

There are many reasons why one might need or still require incandescent bulbs in certain applications. Trying to outlaw them is just plain stupid. At the most, slap a tax on them to make them cost more than the alternatives. I am *STILL* waiting for the "perfect" incandescent replacement- one doesn't exist. That said, I have replaced MOST of my incandescents.

* Dimming characteristics
* Flicker
* Color type or quality
* X10 compatibility
* Light dispersal
* Start up time
* EFI
* Fixture compatibility
* Fixture size

Re:Bullshit (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552352)

You forgot two common home uses - inside the fridge, and inside the stove. Neither compact florescent nor LED bulbs can stand those environments.

Re:Bullshit (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552636)

I forgot nothing. I challenged an absurd statement.

I never said there were replacements for incandescent bulbs for every situation, read my other responses.

Re:Bullshit (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552650)

Oops, my other reply was for the parent, not your post.

Re:Bullshit (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552684)

and the law excludes specialty bulbs for reasons like that... appliance bulbs are excluded.

Re:Bullshit (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552384)

I have yet to find a CFL or LED that's made to be used in my oven.

Re:Bullshit (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552692)

appliance bulbs are not covered by this law.

Re:Bullshit (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552606)

I never said they were, I just challenged the absurd statement the OP made.

I addressed dimming in this post [slashdot.org] .

And for the others:
startup time, flicker, size, EFI: use LED, higher efficiency incandescent, or halogen. All are still legal.
color type or quality: use halogen, higher efficiency incandescent, or LED/CFL bulbs of an appropriate color temp.
X10 compatibility: haven't tested, but halogen or higher efficiency incandescent will work, LED will probably work, dimmable CFL?.
Fixture compatibility: it's a non-issue, all specialty bulbs are exempt from the new regs.
Light dispersal is only a concern with LED, not CFL or other types.

Re:Bullshit (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552706)

>"Light dispersal is only a concern with LED, not CFL or other types."

Actually, that is not true. LED has issues, but the large ballast in CFL will cast a huge shadow near the base, making it unsuitable in many applications.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552104)

Keep fighting social progress. WAAAAAAH!!!! HAAHAHAH!!!

Go live in a cave and read by fire light, you freak.

Re:Bullshit (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551974)

Exacly what I was going to say. You don't have to know much about Edison to know that he was far more interested in self profit then technical advancement.

Re:Bullshit (5, Interesting)

countvlad (666933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552034)

Any sensible man would know we shouldn't have such stupid laws. If CFLs/LEDs/etc are so superior, why do we need a law banning them? If everyone cares enough about the environment to pass a law to mandate the use of such bulbs, don't enough of us care that a law isn't necessary? The government shouldn't be passing laws for this kind of BS, guidelines and industry standard recommendations maybe, but not laws.

If you want to save electricity, how about turning off the millions of street and parking lot lights at night? How about wiring homes with DC so that damn near every piece of electric equipment doesn't have to take a >10% efficiency hit in order to operate? Or a law to limit the number of hours a TV can be used (we can all agree that that freedom isn't needed anymore, right)?

Maybe we should have laws limiting the amount of power your computer can draw or how long it can be on. Or perhaps outlaw that scourge to computer efficiency, the hard drive?

Re:Bullshit (3, Insightful)

Adriax (746043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552154)

Lets drop all environmental laws while we're at it. Why should I have to pay a city sewage utility when I can just connect a pipe to my toilet and dump it all in my neighbor's yard, or even better the river.

These laws are put in to stop idiots from doing stuff now that will com back to hurt them and others later.
I can dump my sewage in my neighbor's yard now, but really damn quickly that neighbor will pop over to my place and pop me one in the face. I can guarantee you there are a LOT of people who do not understand dumping your sewage on someone else's property might be objectionable and might cause that response.
Just as there's a bunch of people who don't know those more expensive bulbs easily save you more than they cost, and using less efficient bulbs just hastens rising power costs.

Re:Bullshit (2)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552208)

That argument doesn't apply. If customers to purchase newer more efficient tech, they actually *save* money so it self-incentivizes/punishes and needs not be legislated.

The environmental laws are good to restrict when saving money causes external damage.

Liberturds are funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552334)

They're more energy efficient not "cheaper here and now".

The market can't solve all your problems. It can only find local extrema. You moron.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552550)

self-incentivizes only assumes a rational person. You have to realize most people are stupid and do not understand math. By banning the bulbs, we are just forcing the stupid people into the choice they should make for saving money. I agree we shouldn't ban them, but I'm all for a tax on them that makes them more expensive then CFLs upfront to discourage stupid people from buying them because they are cheap.

Re:Bullshit (3, Insightful)

submain (856941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552564)

IMHO, this law has nothing to do with the environment. Most likely, its a corporate lobby to give them an excuse to raise the price of incandescent bulbs. In other words, legalized price fixing.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552322)

doesn't it seem even a bit wrong for this to dictate and force things on us when we should be FREE to chose our own choices? If someone is an idiot.. that is what Courts are for.. we don't need parochial oversight for that. IF someone does something Seen in the law or found in the law to be illegal then a judge can find for it.
Not put fences around everything and make laws taking our freedoms to chose from us.. IN CASE someone is an idiot.
Where has common Wisdom Gone ?
Regardless if AC or DC is best.. the choice to use what we wish should be OURS.. not Governments.. Unless they can show REAL reason why it should Never be used. This Idea of Politically correct or Instead of Suggested / Mandated.. is wrong.
Since when are we Communist ? Where are these BORN WITH Rights we used to uphold ?
Sure I think He was greedy.
But the uses for each are obvious and some have made points on both sides.. but Government Involvement .. that is another story and Thread I am sure.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552498)

Sir, I think you're lost... you must have wandered in from the comments section of every Faux News story about how Obama is destroying Our Great Nation.

Re:Bullshit (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552316)

The same reason there are building codes. People would just buy cheap houses that fall down and have all sorts of other hazards otherwise. People are pretty dumb and cheap. We're doing all sorts of other things to reduce energy use, also, including having new standards (laws) for energy efficiency for cars and applicances. We should also update building codes to require more insulation.

I think he's assuming (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551916)

...that had Thomas Edison been alive today, he would have held the patents on these assorted new lightbulbs.

Re:I think he's assuming (2)

rab777hp (2543164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552064)

Nope, he'd have been too blinded to invent them, he'd be lobbying for incandescents while his apprentices would be off developing CFLs and LEDs...

Re:I think he's assuming (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552102)

He would never do that...... [wikipedia.org]

Re:I think he's assuming (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552080)

Tesla would have invented them at least 20 years earlier.

That's right, assuming and speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552180)

All of this is speculation of what a long dead man would have liked.

So, I'll jump in here. I think Edison would have masturbated to the new light bulbs, say that they violate one of his patents, sued everyone making them for billions, and go home and make sweet sweaty love to a farm animal. Oh, and then take off in his space ship that he had hidden for decades and fly off to the planet that Elvis went to after his last Burger King visit.

Hey, your great grandfather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38551932)

was a thief and a crook. Big deal.

Holy crap, he's not lying.... (4, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38551956)

Well this is refreshing; it looks like the truth. Usually people cramming words into the mouths of the dead are self-serving, bullshit-spewing weirdos. Either that or maudlin, irrelevant losers.

This guy, on the other hand, is a university professor who appears to have actual research behind his claims. It goes against him, of course, that he's attempting to improve or revive his famous great-grandfather's reputation with this article, but the research looks real and I presume it's open to review.

How refreshing.

Re:Holy crap, he's not lying.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552074)

I wouldnt put too much stock in 'being a professor'. I have caught many lying outright many times. Had one who was going to sell my company the latest greated inventino he had. Until I read his paper on it. Then in the meeting pointed out how he had lifted the work off 3 other people and just put a new coat of paint on it.

Had one actually sell us a simple graphics principal. He was a bit pissed off when I started listing off the 4 books you could get it out of. Suddenly he didnt want me in his meetings anymore.

I am the one they bring in to make sure these guys are not bs'ing us. It is usually about 50/50 if they are. The second that dude brought out the 'he was a patriot' my bs detector started screamming...

Re:Holy crap, he's not lying.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552108)

I wouldnt put too much stock in 'being a professor'. I have caught many lying outright many times.

Which is why I also specifically pointed out that his research should be open to review. You can't trust a professor automatically; you can generally trust a professor more than some random guy on the internet. There's no point being so paranoid that you won't believe *anything* without reading and re-verifying every single source. You'll quickly reach the point where you can't get out of bed in the morning.

Re:Holy crap, he's not lying.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552540)

Was he the principal of your high school, this Mr Greated Inventino?

Re:Holy crap, he's not lying.... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552112)

Who cares what he would or wouldn't have loved?

Re:Holy crap, he's not lying.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552284)

Holy crap, do you guys not recognize blatant sarcasm?

Im sorry what a load of hogwash... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38551980)

Let's also not forget that most old incandescent bulbs manufactured today are imports from China

From the article...

Where the hell do they think most of those CFL/LED bulbs are made? Sure as hell is not in the united states anymore... Lots of the incandescent were made here. They closed the plants. Not because they couldn't convert them. But because it was just cheaper to add to the ones in China/Mexico/Brazil...

To wave the patriot flag here is garbage. Its not. Its just business, of which Edison was one of the best of his time...

Fluff article. Just to toot how this is such a good thing. Where the jury is still out on that one. We will not know really for 10-15 years if this was a good idea or not. It looks on paper like a good idea. But as with many gov programs what looks good on paper in practice turns out to suck balls...

And the free market always finds a way... (4, Interesting)

stockard (1431131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552036)

You can already get around the restrictions if you want an old fashioned light bulb, they're just called Heatballs [heatball.de] instead. Two guys in Germany [reuters.com] started marketing them as "heaters that fit into a light socket" last year after a similar law went through in the EU.

Re:And the free market always finds a way... (5, Informative)

CaptBubba (696284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552336)

And they sold their original stock which they had from before the efficiency rules, then customs stopped the importation of any more because they are not idiots and know a smartass when they see one.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&twu=1&u=http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/kleinheizgeraet-heatball-zoll-haelt-40-000-gluehbirnen-auf-11065089.html [google.com]

People are missing the major point here: There is no incandescent ban in the US, only an efficiency requirement. If someone can invent a filament bulb which meets the requirements they are free to sell them... oh wait they already did and it is called a halogen bulb; you can pick them up at any hardware store.

Re:And the free market always finds a way... (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552512)

You can more easily get around it just by buying any incandescent bulb that's in any way "weird", which means basically anything but the "normal" bulb. Bulbs of most non-standard shapes and sizes are all grandfathered in due to not having suitable CFL replacements. For example, stuff like this [amazon.com] or this [amazon.com] .

FirsT po5t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552038)

Much A5 Windows [goat.cx]

More feel good legislation. (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552066)

Let's say you save 200w for 6 hours per day by using a more efficient lightbulb. That's 1.2 kw hr per day, or roughly 4mJ.
Given that a gallon of gas weighs about 3 kg and therefore has about 120mJ of heating value, this saves the equivalent of about 4 oz of gasoline per day assuming 50% efficiency. Is legislation for is really warranted?
If they would fix the awful public transit in the SF bay area, we'd be saving something significant instead. Or if we had diesel cars, or stopped drinking bottled tap water.

Re:More feel good legislation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552082)

Millijoules??????????

Re:More feel good legislation. (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552340)

1. People use bulbs more than you let on. 2. 1.2 kwH = 4.32x10^6 Joules (see here [wolframalpha.com] ) 3. The efficiences will scale to billions of fixtures, over many years. 4. The industry is actually fine with the legislation and already prepared. 5. LED lightbulbs, public transit, diesel cars and tap water are not mutually exclusive. (And I thought SF's transit was pretty decent, anyhow) 6. We have bigger fish to fry than fighting over lightbulbs. Why do people care so much?

CFL bulbs pump out radiation and mercury vapour! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552084)

he would never have endorsed dirty energy creating CFL lighbulbs, look on youtube, they make geigercounters go crazy, they also contain LOADS of mercury and emit mercury vapour. LED bulbs are the best by far, they can be icredibly bright, safe and use alot less power than CFL.

Edison wouldn't approve of a bill to ban safe cheap bulbs to only allow poisonous or expensive bulbs be used, his grandson needs to do some research.

Welcome to Animal Farm (2)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552094)

"...How can inventor-entrepreneurs like Edison make a profit if every time they try to make a technological advance some nut in Congress pulls the rug out from under the them and their breakthroughs...?"

Oh yeah, I'm SHUURE Edison would be SO happy with the Federal Government placing a moratorium on the sale of an existing major product, one which at least half of all consumers prefer to the new. Rather than releasing both and letting the market decide.

/SARCASM

Sure, Edison would have been thrilled (3, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552132)

Of course Edison would have loved modern lightbulbs -- what's not too like? Cleaner more aesthetically pleasing light drawing lower power. Of course they last longer, and don't break as easy so people buy less, but hey -- can't have everything right?

But -- if these lightbulbs had been invented by a competitor such as Tesla -- well, many household pets would have to lay down their lives to fight off this infernal contraption that is a peril and danger to us all.

Frankly, Edison was an asshole. Brilliant -- but an asshole nonetheless.

Re:Sure, Edison would have been thrilled (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552276)

I'm not sure I would even call him brilliant. By his own admission, he brute forced his way through inventing, finding 10,000 ways that didn't work. He was a savvy businessman, but I don't think that's the kind of brilliance generally associated with him.

Re:Sure, Edison would have been thrilled (2)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552330)

CFLs most certainly do not last longer. I have boxes full of dead ones, whenever I need a new one I call GE and get a free one on warranty. Since none of them have even been on the market for the 5 year period, I don't even need a receipt.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552134)

Edison fought against AC power distribution because his was DC.

Conclusion does not follow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552178)

To have a functioning society you have to accept that things you are for or against shouldn't always be written into law. It is possible to be for more efficient light bulbs but be against throwing people in jail who don't share your values (all laws are effectively backed by imprisonment). I think society would be better without Apple products, but it would worse with laws banning them. We need to grow up from this fascism and change people's minds with facts and information rather than making things illegal that we don't like.

Chasing the sun (3, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552182)

I'm all for energy efficiency, but I've yet to find a CFL or LED that feels as good as the light from an incandescent bulb. It just brings the most natural experience. The best ones I've seen are the 100W lamps with neodymium (purple) coating [zoomoo-aquaristik.de] which corrects the spectrum to be more white. There's also 60W versions of those, but as the filament burns cooler, it creates a bit too yellow/red light.

I've also tried a plethora of different CFLs including the "hifi" full spectrum ones, but they always give a bit of synthetic experience. The spectrum is still lacking. The modern HF ones are flicker-free, but I maybe can still sense some kind of subliminal flicker. Things like that. They just give the body a message that "something is wrong". Then again, there might be some other industrial high-power lamp types that give good results.

So, I've been in search for great lighting in the same sense like someone seeks the ultimate IPS display. After all I would probably be better off just moving to some sunny country. :)

Re:Chasing the sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552252)

Oddly, after years of sitting in offices and schools all lit by fluorescents, I can't stand incandescent bulbs, everything looks so brown. Especially the "soft" ones, whenever I turn one of those on, I feel like I've gone blind at 60W.

Re:Chasing the sun (2)

Rhywden (1940872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552418)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I fear what we're seeing here is the birth of the optical equivalent to the audiophile.
I'm highly doubtful of stuff like "synthetic experience", "I feel something is wrong" and so on and so forth. It's the exact same language audiophiles use.

Not to mention that stuff like that is a self-fulfilling prophecy - you're sensitive to the kind of lamp and you're thinking that something must be different, so obviously there is something different.
Particularly in light of the fact that our perception of the world is highly subjective - our preconceptions colour our perception (pardon the pun), just as it obviously is in this case.

Re:Chasing the sun (1)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552526)

I've gotten excellent results out of Cree CR6s [creeledlighting.com] . 10.5 watt 65 watt equivalent LEDs. I'm typing this from a room with 6 of them. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Re:Chasing the sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552680)

Have you tried using Monster's gold coated platinum wires to connect those light bulbs? It really enhances the spectrum and makes the experience so much crisper.

he WOULDN'T have loved the new law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38552232)

sure, be cost effective and energy efficient...but NOT efficient upon the environment (ie. mercury). As a lighting distributor, I constantly run into the issue of consumers unaware of the fact that they need to recycle their old bulbs to hazardous waste instead of just throwing them in the trash.

Plus, there's also the aspect that not all FLs, CFLs, LEDs satisfy the consumer's needs. There are applications in which are not suitable (due to personal preference and colour rendering and/or kelvin).

Also, who is it necessary that this becomes a law in the first place? WTF ever happened to "the land of the FREE", it seems rather enslaved by laws to me. The public should be able to choose what they deem appropriate for themselves.

someone should tell this guy... (2)

vst (2539516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552236)

... that his great grandfather actually DIDN'T INVENT the incandescent lightbulb...

Re:someone should tell this guy... (1)

vst (2539516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552272)

pardon me for claiming something without argumentation... here, under "History of the light bulb": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb [wikipedia.org]

I had no idea (3, Interesting)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552278)

I had no idea there was going to be a ban on 100W incandescent bulbs. I currently have 4 150W bulbs and they're in use as modeling lights for my AlienBee strobes. They work well cause they provide really good reference lighting, they're cheap ($2), I haven't replaced them in the 4 years I've had them and they're fully dimmable. I'm not sure what I'm going to end up doing if I have to replace them, anyone have any experience with that? Are there replacements that will be just as bright that will work with a dimmer or do I just have to hope these bulbs never die?

Re:I had no idea (1)

Alphons Clenin (160296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552456)

The makers seem to be uninterested in making LED or CFL bulbs that are as bright as a 150 watt incandescent.

I'd love it if they did. I'd fill my home with them.

wait... (1)

nickdc (1444247) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552288)

And my great-grandfather wouldn't have it any other way.

[citation needed]

The /. crowd used to mock this kind of story... (3, Interesting)

Alaska Jack (679307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552440)

The idea that someone's great-grandson should be taken as some kind of authority on what his grandfather would think -- which in ITSELF is just an "appeal to authority," void of any real meaning.

So this is an appeal to an appeal of authority. Or is it an appeal to authority of an appeal to authority? Whatever, it's meaningless.

- aj

Stupid (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38552556)

What a stupid article and premise!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?