Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
>
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination.  (Yes, again.)
Not sexy?  Too bad.
>
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying.  I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.

By now, of course, they may have tested them for the 5.7 years or so
it would take to reach 50,000 hours. Or not. But they almost certainly
did not do that before they were first introduced. Why delay a product
6 years just to do a test?

Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes.  Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours.  You do the math.

I have /always/ considered the main advantage of CFLs and LEDs to be
that they don't have to be changed as often. This is very helpful
with, say, porch lights which /always/ go out on dark and rainy
nights. [1]

But I never bought the "you will save money" argument. Too many
variables.

[1] Normal bulbs, but the fixture is completely enclosed so the bulb
is not exposed to the weather.

From a 20th century point of view, those figures are totally insane.
When cheap LED lamps became common a few years ago, I thought that
was the end of the line, but even LED lamps have made significant
further progress in beam angle, energy efficiency, and lifetime
within just the last few years.  Anybody who is hoarding lamps for
use in a few years will be sitting on obsolete technology in no
time.  Buy today, weep next year.  Between the crazy pace of progress
and the ever absurder lifetimes, keeping spares around no longer
makes sense.
>
It is utterly stunning progress.

I have one fixture that uses incandescents because the last time I
tried to use CFLs the sockets parted and had to be replaced. But the
LEDs I now use are a lot lighter than the CFLs I used then so, if I
ever actually use up my remaining incandescent bulbs (the lamp isn't
used all that much), LEDs should work.

But future tech is future tech, and I will replace my current LEDs
with a box of New! Improved! LEDS (or whatever replaceds them) of the
future when the time comes.

It may take a while. The overhead light in the room I am typing this
in is a freebie LED sent out so long ago is in the shape of a loop
rather than a bulb. And it may already have lasted longer than the CFL
it replaced.

Note: for a while, when our City Light was keeping these records, my
house was /the/ lowest electricity user among its peers (single family
dwelling with oil heating). Reducing electricity useage is fine, but
not having to change the bulbs so often and, oh yes, less heat output
in the Summer are better reasons for switching.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"