Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:21:54 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

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.

>
Based on calculations.  For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature,  power rating, etc.   Included in that is
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.
>
One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

The map is not the terrain.

Of course, if every bulb is calculated the same way, comparisons
between different brands might be valid. If, of course, the various
brands keep using the exact same parts.

But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.

But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.=20
>
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?

>
See above.
>

>

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.

>
There is no doubt that they save money when compared with
incandescent bulbs.

If you say so.

I say it is irrelevant: people won't buy them to save money. Well,
unless they are growing ... lots and lots of plants ... indoors.

But they might buy lamps using them if the lamps claim to combat
SAD by mimicking sunlight. Even if they just make them feel better
(ie, combat SAD) by making them /think/ they are doing that.

Or because they are tired of changing the bulbs. One things CFLs did
was last a long long time. And the LEDs are looking to keep that
tradition.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"