Talk:Incandescent light bulb/Archive 3

Edit request from Hamiltonham, 19 December 2010
The link marked "more energy-efficient light bulbs" is broken, pointing to a section of the article that was migrated into it's own, namely "Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs". Consideration undeserved but impossible to overlook, EOF.

Hamiltonham (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ✅  My 76 Strat  04:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for Including 60+ year old graph?
I took out a very old (yet recent enough for copyright to still be an issue) and very possibly outdated graph put here by Skatebiker, who put it right back in. The graph is not labeled properly (are the units on the right y axis hours? who knows?). I also question the right of WP to publish this image copyrighted Kluwer academic publishers in 1945. I am no authority on copyright issues, but Skatebiker's statement on the file page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lightbulb-life.svg implies that he/she released rights? How can that be if quite possibly you never owned the rights in the first place? You work for Kluwer? Please explain? Jack B108 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And the bulb technology has been the same for those 60+ years. The problem isn't the data in the graph, it's the copyright status. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cost of heat vs cost of light
I'd recommend that anyone contributing discussions of cost of heating and cost of lighting has references at hand to show the numbers. For example, where I live the tail-block rate for electricity is 6.57 cents Canadian per kwh - certainly among the lowest residential electricity rates on earth. Looking at my November bill, my house used 1110 kwh of electricity and 159.5 cubic metres of natural gas. Reducing the costs (including taxes) to common units shows electricity costs me 8.05 cents/kwh and gas costs 3.69 cents/kwh. I'm better off unscrewing the incandescent lamps and using LEDs or CFLs and burning the extra natural gas in my own high-efficiency furnace, instead of throwing 60% of the heat value away by burning gas in Manitoba Hydro's peaking plants. It's even probably still a win on CO2 emissions, since the electricity I don't use is shipped down to Minneapolis to displace coal-fired generation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, here we have numbers.
 * Here's comparative information with opposite results. I live in a 'row house', which is rather a common form factor for suburbs in Finland. The housing company buys heat from local energy company for 55,49 €/MWh. Each apartment chooses to buy the electricity where they like, and transfer from local power grid company. I checked the prices for all this information on bills dated during autumn 2010. What I pay for electricity is 3,98 €/month and 5,14 c/kWh.
 * Monthly graphs for heating energy consumption show that during July and August some energy is needed for keeping the hot water hot, July average being 284 W, and August 382 W per apartment, which correlates roughly with estimates of hot water usage per person on national level. During June and September, for each apartment, there's some 300 W average heating power, in spite of about 600 W average power dissipation in electric home appliances. In January we are talking about 2.5 kW average for each apartment, totalling some 3.5 kW with electric energy.
 * So everyone in our housing company would pay less, if everyone was heating with light bulbs. And what's more, at least one third of electricity is carbon-free, while 100% of the heat produced by the local heating company is burning mostly natural gas and some peat. Gas is piped from Russian gas fields, electric energy is 90% Finnish.
 * The good news is, one can still buy any size of light bulbs from Russia, for personal use.
 * Seikku Kaita (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but this is original research. We need to find a secondary source for this if it is to be included in the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's something odd about those numbers - 55.49 Euro per MWH for district heating, and only 51.40 Euro per MWH for electricity? Why bother with the district heating plant, then? Electricity is more than 7% cheaper, at least at the incremental rate. Are these all-in costs, or does the electrical bill also come with several additional lines of charges (transmission, etc.) ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lamp Bases: Edison Screw
I don't want to screw up these pages, but wonder about this change I would propose.

The Section on bases is a little confusing. I would propose that someone put it in sub-sections as the bulb shapes sizes section has: wedge bases, edison screw, filament extended or whatever. I'd lead with edison screw since this is perhaps the most familiar to people--and include the names of the edison screw base sizes (which I have just done.) I felt that putting the sizes here rather than just on the edison screw page was warranted since I believe people may be looking for that information (as I had been), but without the link here would not know where to look. (I had to talk to an actual human at an electric supply place to figure it out, then I was able to use wikip.)Wikikd (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by Pyr0Beast, 26 mar 2011
I wonder if you could add under; Efficiency and environmental impact table this lamp data

R7s 230V 120W 2250 Lumen 2000h 2900K Reflector ECO Halogen Lamp (Energy rating C) - Luminous efficacy 18,75lm/W

R7s 230V 500W 8000 Lumen 1000h Reflector Halogen Lamp (Energy rating E) - Luminous efficacy 16lm/W

R7s 230V 400W 8600 Lumen 2000h 2700K Reflector ECO Halogen Lamp (Energy rating C)- Luminous efficacy 21,5lm/W

Pyr0Beast (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: wording of headline, "Efficiency comparisons"
I compared the article with a sibling in another language (German in this case) and I had a time looking for the main section on "Environmental Issues" simply b/c in this article it is titled "Efficiency comparisons" which is, technically, a term of much narrower scope than what the section comprises. I would like to suggest editing the section headline to run "Environmental [and efficacy] Issues" or something the like.

--217.229.51.175 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I changed it to "Efficiency and environmental impact." Additional comments or improvements are welcome. VQuakr (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

History of the light bulb / Heinrich Goebel
The information is not correct.

a carbonized bamboo filament, in a vacuum bottle to prevent oxidation

According to information given by himself, he used platinum lead-in wires in an all-glass envelope, and a high vacuum (using the process invented by Torricelli) to prevent disintegration of the carbon made of bamboo. First he used the glass-material of Eau-de-Cologne-Bottles for making his all-glass envelopes, later he used glass-tubes. He used a blowpipe to melt the bottle, but the lamp was never a bottle. Source: United States Circuit Court, District of Massachussets, affidavit Mr. Henry Goebel 21 January 1893, Edison Electric Light vs. Beacon Vaccuum Pump, pages 18-26

''Despite a successful recreation of his lamp in 1882,Lewis Latimer demonstrated that the bulbs that Göbel had purportedly built in the 1850s, had actually been built much later, and found the glassblower who had constructed the fraudulent exhibits. In a patent interference suit in 1893, the judge ruled Göbel's claim "extremely improbable".''

In the case Edison Electric Light Co. vs. Columbia Incand. Light Co. 182 persons supported the Goebel-Claims and 142 persons supported the Edison view ( Heinrich Goebel never constructed practical lamps earlier than 1880). Approximatly 75 persons confirmed the story of Mr. Goebels telescope in the 1850th at Union Square and the advertisment using electric lamps. A comparable number of Persons never saw electric lights around his telescope at Union Square, New York. You can't establish the truth giving just this one affidavit of a glasblower out of 324 affidavits. In preliminary litigations ( motion for a preliminary injunction) 3 courts ruled for Edison and one against Edison. The opinion of judge Hallett: ''It is not reasonable to believe that he made the story related in his affidavit, and did not make the lamp he has described. Whatever may be said as to Goebel's veracity, he is supported at many points by witnesses of good repute, who speak with precision, and apparently with deliberation.'' Unfortunatly there was never a final hearing in these cases because of the expiry of the Edison-patent in 1894. Online-Source:

In 2000-2007 a research project analysed all documents of the case available in National Record Registrations in the USA; in addition research work about the biografy of Heinrich Goebel took place. The dissertation is available as a book: Hans-Christian Rohde: Die Göbel-Legende – Der Kampf um die Erfindung der Glühlampe. Zu Klampen, Springe 2007, ISBN 978-3-86674-006-8 The "Goebel-Defense" was according to the results fraudulent. Lawyers und Mr. Franklin Pope, an early friend of Thomas Edison and later in quarrel with him, were responsible for moving the story into the international press and to construct the extensive "Goebel-Defense" on the base of a story about Heinrich Goebel published by the New York Times in 1882.

Many sources about Heinrich Göbel, mainly based on documents from the USA, are given in Wikipedia Germany/ Heinrich Goebel.

Heinrich Göbel changed his Nationality in 1865 and used from this year the name Henry Goebel.--89.204.137.234 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Metal
The following statement is made:

...The upper limit to the temperature at which metal incandescent bulbs can operate is the melting point of the metal. Tungsten is the metal with the highest melting point, 3,695 K (6,191 °F)...

Is it the metal with the highest melting point? Are alloys included? I think this statement should be worded more conservativelysomething like

...The upper limit to the operating temperature of metal incandescent bulbs is the melting point of the filament. Tungsten has a very high melting point, 3,695 K (6,191 °F) and other favorable properties, so it is used extensively.

IMHO 129.176.151.10 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But tungsten is the metal with highest melting point. Alloys have melting points intermediate between their constituents. What's your point? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.128.154.31, 11 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Please change "Westminister" to "Westminster" (ie, correct the spelling).

69.128.154.31 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, though I was confused at first, owing to the redirect from the bad spelling. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Radio interference
I wonder if you should make it more clear that the LED technology don't produce radio interference by itself. The driving electronic produce this when switching the power (240v AC) to a more suitable level for the LEDs (they need DC at approx a few volts, depending on the model and number of LEDs used).

Dimmers are another source of radio interference, even when driving traditional Light bulbs. A dimmer turns on the light somewhere between the AC peak (both positive and negative period) and ground, causing a current rush. This happens 50 (or 60) times a second.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.21.122 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 97.101.55.118, 4 June 2011
reference 3 no longer works as a link to nonsubscribers of it. You should be able to substitute.

97.101.55.118 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Diogenes
 * It works for me. Maybe it was just down earlier? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured article nomination criteria
According to Featured article criteria, a potetial featured article has the following attributes:
 * 1) well-written
 * 2) comprehensive
 * 3) well-researched
 * 4) neutral
 * 5) stable

Also, the criteria say that the article must follow the MoS including:
 * 1) a lead
 * 2) appropriate structure
 * 3) consistent citations
 * 4) Media
 * 5) Length

Starting from the easy ones: - I think it may still be a little long and rambling; - There's lots of pictures. - Needs citations for radio frequenncy interference. - Some sections have no sub-parts, others have many sub-parts. - Yes, there's a lead that gives the "high points" of the article. - There haven't been many big recent changes to the contents. - No-one has flagged any neutrality issues. - Tons of references - Seems to cover the subject comprehensively. - Well-written: Prose needs work, isn't brilliant yet.

--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Link Requested
- Please add link reference for the socket standard article (E10, E14, E27, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davipoyastro (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reflector Bulb Shapes
--75.90.160.210 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Incandescent Reflector Abbreviations

 * R = Reflector
 * BR = Bulbous reflector
 * ER = Ellipsoidal reflector
 * PAR = Parabolic aluminized reflector
 * OPAR = Blown one piece, PAR shaped reflector
 * BPAR = Blown one piece, PAR shaped reflector
 * HIR = GE designation for a bulb with an infrared internally reflective coating
 * IRC = Osram designation for a bulb with an infrared internally reflective coating

--75.90.168.122 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of efficacy by power (120 volt lamps)
I think that the table comparing efficacies of light bulbs by power is very nice and informative, however, it will be nicer if it includes 240V lamps as well. Does anyone have a source for the efficacies of 120V lamps or 240V lamps? BloodIce (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Swan
It is interesting that this article states a historical resource which states that twenty-two people may have been able to lay claim to inventing the electric bulb prior to Swan and Edison. It has long been my view that of Swan and Thomas Alva Edison, Swan was the true pioneer, as his bulb dates to 1860, predating Edison's bulb, which dates to the 1870s. This information was something I read at school in the Oxford Encyclopaedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Swan and Edison were the first people who made a business out of selling light, not just bulbs. Swan initially couldn't get enough life out of his lamps until the Sprengel pump came along in 1865. Mad scientists in secret laboratories, torturing platinum filaments in bell jars with ranks and ranks of zinc plates fizzing in acid, don't count. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If Swan had demonstrated a practical light bulb in 1860, scientists in 1878 would not have said Edison was on a wild goose chase trying to invent a practical light bulb. Early bulbs did not last beyond one evening's use, and then the filament burned out or the bulb became too darkened on the inside to let light out. Early "true inventors" are like all the men who built airplanes which wouldn't fly, pre- Wright brothers. Those early "true inventors" were basically replicating work of Volta and Humphrey Davy in the first decade of the 19th century: electric current can make wire or carbon light up for a while, before it burns out. In fact Joseph Priestly published his demonstration of this phenomenon in the 1770's using current from Leyden jars to make wires glow and melt. Edison (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Practical" is indeed the word here. There were lots of horseless carriages before Ford, lots of steam engines before Watt, lots of radio before Marconi, lots of telephones before Bell, lots of steelmakers before Bessemer, etc. etc. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cost of Light
The Cost of Light Considering the value of energy savings and lifetime may allow a modest premium over the initial cost of traditional technologies. Life-cycle cost, the effective “cost of light,” can be estimated by including lamp cost, energy consumption and maintenance over a lighting service period. The units used for this lighting service period are dollars per kilolumen-hours ($/klm-hr):

Cost of Light = 1/LampLumens * { (LampCost + LaborCost)/Lifetime + (EnergyUse x EnergyCost) }

Where:

LampLumens = the light output of the lamp measured in lumens

LampCost = the initial cost (first cost) of the lamp in dollars

LaborCost = the labor cost necessary to replace a lamp in dollars

Lifetime = the useful operating life of the lamp, expressed in 1000 hours

EnergyUse = the power consumption of the lamp, expressed in Watts

EnergyCost = the cost of the electricity necessary to operate lamp in $/kWh

By this measure, it can be argued that LED-based illumination is already a viable economic alternative for many applications. For instance, although incandescent lamps have a very low cost and high lumen output compared with LEDs, the LED source has a much longer lifetime and consumes far less power. In fact, using the equation above and looking at a finite quantity of light emission (one million lumen-hours), typical LEDs already have a slightly lower “cost of light” than incandescent and halogen sources today.
 * And your point is? Cite it and write it. A 40-lumen bulb that lasts 40 years is not going to replace a 1000 lumen bulb that you change every three months. Power density is a real issue for solid-state lighting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Dates
Under “History of the light bulb,” there is a passage:

“In 1840, British scientist Warren de la Rue enclosed a coiled platinum filament in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it. The design was based on the concept that the high melting point of platinum would allow it to operate at high temperatures and that the evacuated chamber would contain fewer gas molecules to react with the platinum, improving its longevity. Although an efficient design, the cost of the platinum made it impractical for commercial use.[10][11]”

The two citations both list de la Rue to have created this invention in 1820, yet the article says 1840. This is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmurg69 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The two citations should be removed, since the websites are clearly not reliable sources. They say Warren de la Rue was doing complex experiments in 1820, when he was only 5 years old, per his biographical article. I have never found a primary source for de la Rue or de la Rive, both of whom get cited, for having done such an experiment in 1820 or in 1840. De la Rue in 1840 is very possible, since he was an active experimenter by that time.I will remove those citations. Edison (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The two references seem to back you up. Feel free to change the date and shift that paragraph up higher in the article.  Stepho  talk 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it back, user:Edison has pointed out that those references were wrong.  Stepho  talk 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Political Leaning Statement
The section talking about banning the light bulb has a very political overtone to it (in bold): There has been consumer resistance to phasing out of incandescent lamps, preferring the quality of light produced from incandescents[44], the Libertarian political theory of free markets as somehow precluding national interest as a reason for regulation, and concerns about mercury contamination with CFLs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjstigall (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"metal filament wire"
Didn't early light bulbs use a carbon filament? If so, this phrase from the introduction should be changed to remove the word "metal". -- 77.189.55.229 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No. This comes under the heading of "the lede needn't summarize everything." The lede uses the present tense, therefore it need only describe current methods. But the article does not ignore the early carbon filaments - far from it. The word "carbon" appears 39 times on the article page, not the least noticeable of which is in the caption for the second picture, showing one of Edison's original bulbs. Most of the rest are in the history section where they belong. Jeh (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Carbon filament bulbs are still made, mostly for decoration and museums...they are stupid expensive, as a quick Google search will show. Probably also purchased by those who think the new-fangled metal filaments produce too much harsh glare, and who also worry about tungsten poisoning ... --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2012

Changing of the Health Section
While the Light emitted from florescent lighting can be dangerous to people with light sensitivity disorders, the Mercury inside of every florescent light constitutes a serious health hazard to everyone in the event that the light breaks or cracks. Unlike normal incandecents where no toxic chemicals are released, and LED's where mercury shouldn't be released (although studies have found that some unscrupulous LED makers use small amounts of Mercury in the LED.).


 * These issues are already covered in Fluorescent lamps and health and that is linked from this article. btw "dangerous" and "serious health hazard" look to me like gross exaggerations (particularly the latter). Jeh (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone says "studies show" and doesn't cite the studies, the comment is pretty well useless. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with my timeline edit?
I was given the go-ahead to add some more minor improvements to carbon filament production techniques to the timeline, since it's so incredibly important that we include (only for the sake of political correctness) Lewis Latimer to the timeline. Was the inclusion of other "pioneers" in filament production processes not acceptable? 76.119.76.228 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is adding all that detail makes the template far too wide for the page, e.g. as in this version. ON the actual changes it is very repetitive to have half a dozen entries on essentially the same innovation, presumably minor improvements to the carbon filament manufacturing process, distinguished only by patent numbers, which are pointless as no-one is going to look them up. Edison ends up mentioned and linked three times, other entries are so non-notable they presumably don't have an article. Trying to cram so much into a small space also makes the template overly long.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. So because these improvements to carbon-filament manufacture are "presumably minor," you remove them completely, but retain Latimer's minor improvement.  And your argument for exclusion is that they're "distinguished only by patent numbers" which you claim are "pointless"?  Really?  That is what you think?  That you have the right to revert my edits based upon your own assumption that "no-one is going to look [pointless patent numbers] up"?  Even though Wikipedia allows for patent numbers to be used as sources?  That doesn't matter to you?


 * So, you've removed all of my edits to the timeline, and your reasons are:


 * 1. It's repetitive to have half a dozen entries on essentially the same innovation (but we'll keep Latimer's on there, even though there's no evidence that his innovation was anything but "minor".  Funny how twice already you've deleted half a dozen of my sources but kept Latimer on the timeline.  POV much?)


 * 2. My sources were distinguished "only by patent numbers," which, even though WP guidelines permit them, YOU claim they are "pointless as no-one is going to look them up."  Well, they'll certainly have no chance to do so now, since you continue to willfully suppress the information.


 * 3. The sources I've cited are essentially worthless, because the inventors mentioned "presumably" do not have their own Wikipedia article.  I wasn't aware that this was a prerequisite - thanks for clarifying.


 * 4. There isn't enough room in "such a small space," anyway.  Funny, I previewed the edit multiple times before submission, and it all seemed to fit just perfectly.


 * So what is it, John? All of the above?  I'm going to go way out on a limb here and assume that it's none of the above.  It's obvious (to me, at least) by your editing that you have a desire for Lewis Latimer to A.  Appear on the timeline at any cost, and B.  Be protected against any dilution of his "legacy"  by citing other innovators on the timeline who have at least contributed similar, if not greater contributions to carbon filament manufacturing techniques.


 * I think we need to have a moderator settle this one. 76.119.76.228 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

First, this discussion really should go on the talk page of the template, not here.

Second, there are no "moderators". There are "administrators" ("admins"), but they have no particular decision-making authority in content disputes, which is what we have here. Content disputes are usually settled by WP:CONSENSUS. If you want outside help with a content dispute (that is, if you want more people to participate) you would usually first ask for comments on the talk pages of related articles, or of associated Wikiprojects. Other procedures for resolving content disputes are suggested here: WP:DR

Third, a patent does serve as a reference for a claim that "person X got a patent on Y", but it doesn't really establish the importance of Y.

Fourth... Demanding changes to an article (or a template) under threat that you'll make another change if your demands aren't met (as you did (here), then admitting that your purpose in adding your material was to dilute the apparent importance of material you don't like... that just isn't how things are done here. Jeh (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good God, I'm not even going to honor that blob of incoherent text with a response. 76.119.76.228 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User:76.119.76.228 asked me to take a lot at this dispute. Although I have some familiarity with Edison's light bulb (I live in New Jersey, and I did science projects and papers on him in grade school and high school--and hell, I just was just in Fort Lee yesterday, which Edison made motion picture capital of America prior to Hollywood), I am less familiar with the pre-Edison early history of the light bulb in general, and Lewis Latimer in particular. But maybe that'll lend itself to greater objectivity on my part.

The first thing I notice is that this discussion seems like it's on the same topic as "Timeline Edit Request" above. Why are they separate? Can they be merged in order to keep the history of the dispute in one place? Or do the participants here feel that the are distinct in scope?

76.119.76.228, you say you were "given the go-ahead to add some more minor improvements" to the timeline. To whom were you referring that gave you this go-ahead?

Also, 76.119.76.228, you really need to refrain from accusing others of "POV" with little or no evidence to support this. It certainly possible for an editor to take a good faith position in a matter without being motivated by POV. Unless you can exclude all other possible motivators for a given position, it is best to focus on the content of the dispute, and not the editor. Please see WP:AGF.

It is also not in keeping with WP:Civility to refer to another editor's words as a "blob of incoherent text". Looking at Jeh's message, I see nothing incoherent about it, and speaking this way to editors with whom you are involved in a dispute is definitely not the way to get them to see your side of things.

John, you mentioned that it's very repetitive to have half a dozen entries on essentially the same innovation. This makes sense to me, but if I my ask, what is the significance of Latimer's contribution, compared to the others? I know I'm the johnny-come-lately to this, but I'd appreciate if you gave me a primer on this. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that no-one has the authority to give me the go-ahead, but the go-ahead was regardless given me by Stepho in the "Timeline Edit Request":

"Feel free to edit the article text or the timeline to be consistent. The timeline can be edited at Template:Early evolution of the light bulb . Stepho  talk  09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)"

I respectfully retract my "incoherent blob of text" comment. I believe "ridiculous blob of text" would be more accurate; I wasn't attacking the messenger, I was attacking the message:

Jeh had stated "a patent does serve as a reference for a claim that 'person X got a patent on Y', but it doesn't really establish the importance of Y." And the importance (or lack thereof) was precisely my point, which makes the inclusion of those references all the more valid. Those references were being deleted by another editor, and this entire discussion has stemmed from those actions. For User Jeh to diminish the validity of patent numbers as references (after User JohnBlackburne had the nerve to call them "pointless"), and then to use the question of importance as the basis for his argument...well, let's just say it turned me off a bit from receiving WP policy lessons from him (though, admittedly, his points WERE valid and I'm still working out the kinks and trying to adhere.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012
please change "easy bake oven toy to household appliances.

99.56.240.174 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: If you can find a reference which calls it a household appliance, reopen the request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"triac" should link to TRIAC
The phrase "phase-control triac dimmers" links "triac" to Wikipedia's article on thyristors. Since there's a dedicated article for TRIAC, the link should be changed.


 * Done. Also linked dimmer.  Thanks.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline Edit Request
Hmm... Where is Ladygin with his volfram lamp, argon lamp, and patents which was selled to General Electrics on this timeline?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.109.163 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The timeline shows that Lewis Latimer was responsible for "Better Filament Production". However, his contribution to the production techniques of carbon filaments during that time were among hundreds of advancements in carbon filament manufacture. He is mentioned in this articles purely for bias and POV, as Mr. Latimer is cited by many black-supremacy groups as not only being influential to the development of incandescent bulbs, but in some cases cited as having been the actual inventor of the bulb itself.

If his name is not removed from the timeline by 11/10/2011, I will add to the timeline the name of every inventor who holds patents for the manufacture of carbon filaments for the incandescent bulb, since it's so obviously important that we mention Latimer's near-insignificant process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's the 11th. I forgot. But later today, I'm going to be doing exactly that - adding at least a dozen inventors names to the timeline for "filament production techniques." Seriously, does no-one have any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The timline is not compatible with the information in the article, For example it says William David Coolage invented Tungston fillement 1910. But in the article it says "On December 13, 1904, Hungarian Sándor Just and Croatian Franjo Hanaman were granted a Hungarian patent (No. 34541)..." Which is not mentioned in the timeline. This is only one example. --upulpp 04:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upulpp(talk • contribs)


 * Feel free to edit the article text or the timeline to be consistent. The timeline can be edited at Template:Early evolution of the light bulb .  Stepho  talk 09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The history of technology is full of "rival claimants" who worked on something before the inventor who actually invented a practical or commercially useful device. Addition to a timeline of dozens of tinkerers who were unsuccessful would be disruptive editing, and is not recommended. We look for reliable secondary sources, such as books on the history of technology from respected university presses, rather than original research by people who found a patent somewhere and infer success it does not imply. In the case of Just and Hanaman, the reference cited is from a Hungarian branch of GE, and does not rank high as an "independent and reliable source." But taking it at face value, note that it credits Thomas Edison with the first bulb useful for illuminating purposes, in 1879. Then it says Just and Hanaman made their tungsten bulb by plating a similar carbon filament with tungsten, then the carbon was removing by heating the filament. The document says the patent wasn't issued until December, 1904, not that the bulbs were offered for sale in 1904. It says the Tungsram trademark was not registered until 1909, and the Russian Tungsram poster dates from 1910, not 1904. It does not say the lamps were filled with inert gas. It does not say when Just/Hanaman tungsten lamps were first manufactured and sold, but it may have been a couple of years later. A snippet view  of a journal article  says that the Just/Hanaman lamps were first produced in 1906.  The Just-Hanaman lamps were "too fragile for general use." The resulting filament was brittle.  In 1905 the factory was "unable to produce lamps free from faults". The company using the Just-Hanaman process "in practice had failed to produce a lamp of satisfactory quality.." and they fired Just and switched to a different process in 1909.    A book says the Just-Hanaman lamps were "inferior in terms of quality." This is a poor way to make filaments. It was replaced by Coolidge's superior invention of starting with powdered tungsten and making it ductile, and drawing a tungsten filament, and making it into the tight spiral familiar a century later.  I found a timeline in  "The fundamentals of nuclear power," M.W. Hubbell," Authorhouse, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4634-2441-1, page 31, which credits Just and Hanaman, 1904""..granted a Hungarian patent for a tungsten filament lamp, improving the light bulb."   If we search for Coolidge and "tungsten filament," there are scads of reliable sources giving him credit. See Palombi, page 153-156]which discusses the contributions of Just& Hanaman(1904 patent for tungsten filament), as well as Coolidge ductile tungsten filament, 1910 and Langmuir (nitrogen added to bulb with tungsten filament, and coiling the filament, 1913.  We must beware of giving undue weight, or of implying in a timeline that Just and Hananam did more than they accomplished.  The "drawn wire tungsten filament" was a truly big deal and came from Coolidge's success in 1910 and Langmuir's in 1913. So far the only addition I recommend to the timeline is for the "First patent for a tungsten filament lamp, Just and Hanaman, 1904." Edison (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added Hanaman and Just to the timeline, along with Coolidge.Edison (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that I said the article text and timeline should be made consistent but that I did not specify the exact details of which should be altered. If the timeline is the more accurate representation of major events then the article text should be made also make the points you mentioned above - ie specifying which events are major events and which are just intermediate steps. I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm reluctant to do the editing myself but I'm happy with pointing out WP tips (people seemed to have trouble figuring out how to edit that timeline). Cheers.  Stepho  talk 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeline awkwardly placed
The timeline itself contains little information, yet it takes up a huge amount of article space. I do not understand the timeline layout and formatting - would it be possible to float it to the right side of the page so that there could be text alongside it? Where can I find a guide about this kind of information presentation?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Bulb heat emission
I've noticed that source [36] is not related to any document. There's just written the page and the table number, without any other reference. Actually, the sentence it refers to attracts my curiosity as well: isn't all the power converted into heat for a light source? I mean, visible light is a form of radiation transferring heat.. Stefanomoret (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Stefano
 * Fixed, looking at the text from a couple of years ago this was a reference to GE TP110 technical bulletin. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, is there public access to that source? Anyway, I still think the sentence it refers to is misleading. Stating that a certain percentage of input power is "lost as heat" and the rest goes into visible radiation is not really correct, because all electromagnetic radiation goes ultimately into heat. The fact of part of heat being visible is already taken into account for by "luminous efficacy". Stefanomoret (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's hard to describe accurately in a simple way. Of course the light eventually becomes heat, unless it happens to go out the window, into the sky and travel forever without hitting a planet.  But the point is that it illuminates objects in a useful way first, whereas the IR radiation does not.  But it's still kind of arbitrary.  You could say x% is emitted as visible radiation, y% is emitted as IR radiation, and z% is heat loss by convection.  And some heat conducted out the base.  But it's hard to you the breakdown of the different heat loss mechanisms.  So it's tempting to lump together heat IR radiation, convection and conduction as the part that is "lost to heat" and consider the visible radiation all as being useful.  But to do that you need a cutoff for what is visible and what is not, and there's a wide range of wavelengths in the deep red that are almost invisible and pretty might might as well be IR.  So there's no one correct number that is the percentage.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but then if you write that "90%" is lost as heat, which of the x, y, z component are you considering? To take into account these different components there are actually different parameters which are measured: luminous efficacy of a source (luminous flux / power input) and luminous efficacy of radiation (luminous flux / total radiation). Stefanomoret (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
I'm not a wikipedia expert. I don't understand why I can't edit the main page. Anyway, there's a typo. It says the Phoebus cartel lasted from 1924 until WWI. Obviously it should be WWII. And it's probably worth changing it to "World War Two", with a link.

Fixed. If you register a user ID, you can edit semi-protected pages; sometimes articles get locked out for IP address editors due to vandalism problems. There might be Wikipedia experts out there, but I'm not one either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Error/unclarity in definition of luminous efficacy
Article says this: "Luminous efficacy of a light source is a ratio of the visible light energy emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the lamp." Flux is a measure of power, not energy. It might be better stated "Luminous efficacy is the ratio of the power of the light emitted (the luminous flux) to the total power input to the lamp." JohnEinNJ (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The chart would help if it included more than incandescents and halogens; why doesn't it contain common fluorescent, compact fluorescent, and LEDs that people may have experience with? I have an LED bulb in my hand that does 54 lm/watt right now. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Who invented the lightbulb?
That's the big question that makes this a Wikipedia Vital Article, but I believe we're unnecessarily adding confusion here in our article where it doesn't need to be. For instance the way Davy is highlighted with the timeline and the opening paragraphs give him massive undue importance. First, he did not invent or ever make a light bulb, which is the subject of our article. If we want to talk about another subject, the arc light; or we want to discuss the science that preceded the light bulb, then we need to be more clear that Davy was not one of the light bulb inventors. Even then, L. Davis, the author used as a source for Davy, speaking of the arc light (not even a light bulb) actually says that Davy "didn't invent it and never claimed to" (it was Allasandro Volta, 1800). So does Davy even warrant a mention here? At the very least we need to restructure to remove the confusion placing him at the top of light bulb inventors. Our article also needs to be clear that James Bowman Lindsay did in fact invent the first light bulb in 1835, not just an "electric light" as it says, which confuses him with the earlier inventors of non-bulb lights. The facts that 1) he didn't patent or promote it, 2) it was not commercially viable, and 3) it was a very, very short-lived filament... all do not diminish that he invented, built, and described a light bulb in 1835, which is the subject of our article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article about Lindsay cites a local newspaper from 1835 as the only support for a claim that he demonstrated any incandescent light, and unfortunately it is impossible to verify what the local paper said. Do you have access to it? Many experimenters applied a battery to a piece of iron or platinum wire and made it glow, to the amazement of their neighbors. It is a far reach to then claim that he "invented a light bulb" or even that his filament was contained in a bulb, whether evacuated or not. You might wish to improve the Lindsay article by adding reliable sources. Edison (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is Lindsay's 1835 account of his demonstration of electric light. He apparently repeated the demonstrations of Davy and others that electric current would make a filament glow, and he said it glowed in air or in a glass tube without air. There is no independent verification, and no indication that it lasted longer than the typical few hours before the filament burned out. It sounds pretty dim, since he only claims he could read print 18 inches from it. Edison (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is his account then it is a self published source which is not permitted as a reference under Wikipedia's rules. And quite rightly so.  Otherwise I could publish a book claiming that I really invented the (say) electric toaster and then copyedit same into a Wikipedia article.  As a matter of convention, the credit for an invention goes to he who patented it first (this generally only gets overturned if prior art exists and a court disallows the patent). 86.166.70.84 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the James Bowman Lindsay article also needs to be updated, but because it is a much-less watched page, I wanted these very important changes to be vetted by a wider group first. Didn't want to sneak anything in the back door. ;) I will make sure to add sources that verify his device was used for lighting (reading/writing) and that he did enclose it in glass and discuss it burning without air. When you say that "Many experimenters applied a battery to a piece of iron...", as if it were nothing, we only care here about the first to do that and enclose it in glass for the purpose of lighting.  Reliable sources say the Lindsay did that in 1835.  No reliable source says that anyone else did it earlier.  The independant verification that he invented it is 1) his word printed by public news before anyone else invented or even described it (timing is the main proof, his word is second), and 2) independant published account that the lectures did actually take place where he showed the invention, including dates, times, & location.  3)Many secondary sources establishing he had a light bulb in 1835. The fact that it burned dimly (or any other quality issue) is irrelevant to the question of who first invented the light bulb, except in this case to prove that Lindsay's was not an arc light. Many of the secondary sources give credit to Warren De la Rue in 1820 for inventing the light bulb, following a huge error in Ency Britt. Even our Warren De la Rue page said he did, I just fixed it; you might want to review my edit there. They failed to notice that he would have been only 5 yrs old at the time, lol! I'll try to get these changes done within the week. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The archive of this talk page has a considerable amount of references regarding early experimenters who made wires glow with electricity. Priestley wrote about it in the 1770's, back when a series of Leyden jars charged from a static machine was the strongest current source. Many experimenters after 1800 built Voltaic batteries and used them to heat wires to incandescence. "De la Rue" and De la Rive" both have been credited with making wires glow in glass cylinders. It is hard to pin down what publication or experiment the various later writers on the history of incandescent lighting were thinking of when they attribute early experiments to one of the two names. Lindsay's1835  letter to the newspaper is not really a reliable source. Reports by other reliable observers are needed. Making a wire glow dimly for a short while  in 1835 is not a breakthrough or innovation. Edison (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the archives of this talkpage, please see Talk:Incandescent light bulb/Archive 2 where I cited "The Engineering Magazine," McGraw-Hill publishing company, inc.,New York, Volume VII, April to September 1894, "Development of the incandescent electric light, by John W. Howell, pages 70-77 " which says (p71) that Davy in 1808 experimented with his large battery and "Metallic wires and pieces of carbon were heated to incandescence in the open air, and in globes which were exhausted, or filled with different gases at different pressures." In "American electrical directory" (1886) p94 and following, Dr Otto Moses  in a meeting of the National Electric Light Association says that Davy "was really the discoverer of the incandescent light, and that early experiments of Star, Swan and others "were not much in advance of what Sir Humphrey Davy had done fifty years before." The book says Thomas Edison and assistants then took up incandescent lighting and "in a couple of years brought it to a state of great development and perfection," while Swan resumed his abandoned work of the 1860's.  Was Moses a credible source? The journal Electrical Review in 1910 wrote favorably about that particular talk.  From  this and other works discussing the history of the  development of incandescent lights in the 19th century, it appears that Lindsay (1835) merely replicated Davy (1808) and should not be credited with "inventing the incandescent light bulb" or much of anything else. Edison (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * says of Thomas de la Rue, father of Warren de la Rue, that "In 1829 he had made the first known attempt to produce an incandescent light bulb. Although an effective design, his use of platinum for the filament made it commercially unviable." Countless other books on the history of the incandescent light disagree with that statement about the "effectiveness" of a platinum filament, since there is too little margin between the temperature of effective incandescence and the melting point, which is why no commercially useful bulb was ever made with platinum. Swan and Edison went to carbon, which was later supplanted by tungsten. Edison (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect here from "light bulb"
Right now this Light bulb redirects to Incandescent light bulb. I am not sure that this should be the case. In contemporary times worldwide many communities are discouraging some traditional household uses of incandescent light bulbs and encouraging the public to use other kinds of bulbs. I am not sure that the term "light bulb" for most people still refers to an incandescent bulb - I have lived in the United States and India and in both countries many local broad government efforts have for years encouraged people to use fluorescent bulbs, for example. Could I request comment on creating an article called "Light bulb" which would give general information on Compact fluorescent lamps and Incandescent light bulbs? This new article would draw from both of those and take information from Electric light. The use that I am imagining is that a household could want information about various types of lightbulbs for home use, and the problem which I want to circumvent is the the search of someone seeking a household-use overview for "light bulb", and instead that person gets a history of the originally invented lightbulb rather than information about all contemporary light bulbs. What is the rationale for having "light bulb" redirect here instead of to its own article or to electric light?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For the rationale, the term "bulb" refers to the shape of the glass containment, whereas fluorescents are commonly referred to as "tubes." That said, it is fairly common for people to simply refer to all lights as bulbs. I really don't have much of an opinion on the redirect myself, but just thought I'd answer your last question. Perhaps others will come along and help sort this out. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
The page on incandescent lightbulbs needs this information added:

"The white powdery substance on the inside of most common household and commercial incandescent bulbs is called Kaolin. Kaolin, or Kaolinite, is a white, chalky clay in a very fine powder form, that is blown in and electrostaticlly deposited on the interior of the bulb. It serves to very effectively diffuse the light emitted from the filament, producing a more gentle and evenly distributed light. Manufacturers are able to vary the thickness, composition and total amount of the kaolin in a bulb in order to adjust the characteristics of the final light emitted from the bulb. Many brands are established around this, notably General Electric's "Reveal" series. Kaolin diffused bulbs are used extensively in interior lighting because of their comparatively gentle light."

The page is semi-protected, and while I am an expert on the subject, I am not a registered user. Just thought I'd make my little contribution here and there. If someone could please add.

Definitive citations (permalink):

http://www.geconsumerandindustrial.com/environmentalinfo/documents/msds/msds_incandescent_lamps.pdf

potential citations:

 &  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.44.78  (talk • contribs)  22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Posted by an anon on WT:ENERGY, posted here on behalf of anon by User:extra999. extra 999 ( talk ) 08:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added this information, per your request, to the construction section. I made a few minor changes to avoid a promotional tone, and changed the part about thickness of the coating, composition, etc..., to simply "pigments" because that's all the source says. (Only 1 source seems to be very helpful; but it is a primary source, so a secondary source would be helpful, if you can provide one. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done}. Mdann52 (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Health issues
I don't see the point of the Health Issues section at the end. The problems mention refer to fluorescent bulbs, not incandescents. It seems as if someone was trying to make a point (POV) that CFL bulb light may be harmful to health. That may be so, but it doesn't belong here. I'll check back later, and if no one has objected, I'll delete the section. MarkinBoston (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

May 20 edits
Could somebody with editing rights please review edits by Apteva (currently blocked)? Some edits were genuine link improvements while some were stealth edits changing complete meaning of sentences without any supporting references and, quite frankly, just garbage insertions. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the changes made and can see nothing wrong with any of them. He removed an uncited claim that has been tagged for 5 months (No problem).  He clarified that the life of a CFL is "up to" 10,000 hours not just 10,000 hours (No problem because even the lamp manufacturers state "up to" in their lifetime claims).  And he added a link to the Pheobus cartel which was already referenced and linked earlier in the article (So no problem here either).


 * It might help if you indicated which edit(s) you have a problem with and why. I don't understand your point about "stealth edits".  It is impossible to make a stealth edit in Wikipedia because all adits, and who made them, are visible to everyone in the edit summary.  –  Live Rail    &lt; Talk &gt;  12:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Bioluminescent Bacterial Lightbulb
Here is a recent discovery news article on an electricity free light bulb that uses genetically engineered bacteria; would this be the correct article to mention it? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't sound like it's an incandescent bulb, and it hasn't actually been produced successfully in significant quantities (and thus has no reasonably foreseeable impact on the market for incandescent bulbs), so I don't think so. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed
A citation is needed for the sentence: "Heat from lights will displace heat required from a building's heating system, but generally space heating energy is of lower cost than heat from lighting." CozmicCharlie (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the building has electric resistance heat, then the space heating cost would be the same. If the heat is from fossil fuel, then the space heating energy would be more expensive. If it is solar heat, then the heating energy might be cheaper. I do not see the need for a citation for the obvious, but it should not be difficult to find a ref. I will take a look in the next few days. Edison (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Section "Commercialisation" - 'granted British Patent No 8 in 1880'.
I can't believe this is correct, even with the referencte (which I can't check). Is "The eighth patent issued in 1880" meant? I can't believe it was the eigth patent ever issued in the UK, especially later in the section it says the same patentee got Patent 4933 in the same year. Can anyone check this? Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the source, but I do think this may be a typo. I don't have access to the actual patent either. However, the book A to Z of STS Scientists by Elizabeth H. Oakes (available on google books) says it is patent number 18, not 8, and a few other sites on the internet seem to confirm.


 * According to this website from the British Library, British patents prior to 1916 reset to "1" every year. So Swan's patent is merely the 18th (or 8th?) patent issued in 1880." Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, on the edit summary I suggested it should be "8th [British] Patent] of 1880". Your ref seems better than what we have, but we could finesse it by saying "a patent of early 1880", or just "an 1880 patent". Having patent no. 1 might be interesting in its own right, but patent no. 8 isn't particularly interesting in its own right unless it could be clicked through to look it up; but I don't believe they're available (yet) online from the Patent Office or whatever it's now called. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, after looking into this deeper, I'm getting a lot of conflicting information from various reliable sources. I've checked a lot of books on google books. There are basically two stories which I can find. Either 1.) Swan received his first patent in 1878 or 2.) He recieved it in 1880.


 * All sources seem to agree that a patent was issued in November of 1880. Nearly half of the books say this was his first patent, and nearly half say it was his second. For the latter, the story goes that he was granted a patent in May of 1878, and then Edison was granted a patent in 1879, resulting in a law-suit. By 1880, Swan filed for a patent on an improvement,and then by 1881, Swan had joined forces with Edison.


 * The idea that the patent number is either 8 or 18 seems to be a complete falsehood. Perhaps it has something to do with the date, May 18th, which keeps coming up. (By both May and November of those years, one would expect the patent numbers to be into the thousands.) Adding to the confusion, the same source used for this article is used in the Joseph Swan article, but that article says something completely different, so I have no idea what the source really says. I agree that we should probably remove the patent number, until the actual patents become digitized and available online. I'm not sure there is any other way to sort out the confusion without simply picking the secondary source which we like best. Zaereth (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With this edit I've finessed it to "a British patent of 1880", but I've kept the ref and the tag for now (it may still be wrong, perhaps we should say 1878 or 1880, but that's a bit weasely). I doubt I could do more or better research than you, so I think it's really your call. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Section "Power" (7.1), "Standard" bulb is not (in the UK: Pearl[escent]?)
The last sentence in this section reads:


 * Note that the lumen values for "soft white" bulbs will generally be slightly lower than for standard bulbs at the same power, while clear bulbs will usually emit a slightly brighter light than correspondingly powered standard bulbs.

Now perhaps I am being thick, but the second half of this sentence "while clear bulbs..." just repeats the first part, inverted, and should be cut. But I don't know what is meant by a "standard" bulb is; if "clear" is meant, then it should say so, not say "clear bulb" and "standard bulb" if they mean the same thing (this elegant variation is annulled anyway by the repetition in the second half of the sentence). Similarly I think what are called "soft white" bulbs in the article would be what we call "pearl[escent]" bulbs in the United Kingdom?

Perhaps the article could say e.g. "coated" bulbs instead of "soft white" (or "pearl"), but this is a bit vague since all bulbs are coated in several ways for other reasons. "Pigmented" or "colo[u]red" doesn't seem right either. Other editors have probably got better terminology than I can think of.

SO, may I suggest as a first attempt at a rewrite:


 * "Soft white" or "pearlescent" bulbs will generally be slightly dimmer (have lower lumen values) than clear bulbs of the same power rating.

However I am sure someone else can do better than that (which is why I have not changed it in the article myself).

By the way I think this article is extremely well written, informative and at the right level of expertise in general, it's a credit to its editors and to Wikipedia.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)ow


 * Ah, I think I see my confusion. There are soft white bulbs, then standard (pearlescent) bulbs, then clear bulbs. If my assumption is correct then the sentence is not repetitive, but calling pearl[escent] bulbs "standard" is not a term I've heard used in the UK, so perhaps needs to be explained somehow. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know...
Noting the bit about bulbs having fusible lead-in wires to avoid the bulb drawing a large current when the filament fails and an arc is formed, I suspect any current so formed will be less than the current needed to blow a hole in the metal cap when the live lead-in wire breaks freeing one end to make contact with the earthed cap. Perhaps the article can be expanded on the lines that the fuses can be pointless as they themselves can draw a greater current when they fail! I've even photos of such blow-holes in the sides of bulb caps - somewhere.


 * In actual fact: if the bulb contained a vacuum, then the parting filament wires will not produce much in the way of an arc. In a perfect vacuum, of course, there will be no arc at all as there is nothing to ionise.  However, in a gas filled bulb, the arc formed when the filament parts can and often does ionise a significant part of the gas filling.  This creates a momentary short between the filament lead in wires.  It is the main reason why the failing bulb gives a bright flash. It is this current that ruptures the in built fuse, and sometimes the circuit feed fuse.  In the early 1960's, in Britain, there was a brief fetish with installing high speed fuses in distibution boards.  It was unknown for a failing incandescent bulb not to take out the circuit fuse as well.  Vacuum bulbs (which were still available in some sizes) were imune from this effect.

In march, 2014, in Canada these light bulbs will be phased out. 24.89.95.149 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 86.166.70.84 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Efficiency and environmental impact
I've made the following changes to the first section of "efficiency and environmental impact"

PAR (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify the difference between radiant luminous efficacy (LER) and source luminous efficacy (LES)
 * Specify the values in the table that are LER and LES
 * Removed the LER of "white light" as 240 lpw, since the white light source was not defined, and it REALLY must be.
 * Removed the reference for the two idealized sources at 4000 and 7000 K, since it was not relevant to the values given. I believe the value for the 4000 K source is incorrect, it should be 8% and 55 lpw, but I have not changed the values.
 * Corrected misuse of "efficiency"
 * Replaced 3683 as the melting point of tungsten with 3695, as per theTungsten article.

This section begins with the statement "Approximately 90% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light ..." This is at odds with the figures in the table below in this section and with the statement in the third paragraph of the introductory section that "most incandescent bulbs convert less than 5% of the energy they use into visible light." I've rewritten the sentence as "Of the power consumed by typical incandescent light bulbs, 95% or more is converted into heat rather than visible light ..." Piperh (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the confusion stems from the fact that the section jumps right into "luminous efficiency" and "efficacy" without first describing plain-old, straight-forward "conversion efficiency." Conversion efficiency is amount of total emitted radiation per the total electrical energy used. For a 120 volt, 100 watt, gas-filled lamp, this is about 10%, according to the books I've read.


 * One of the problems is that nearly all the light --even visible light-- is eventually turned into heat energy. The only energy not wasted is the tiny amount that actually falls upon the retina. The rest just bounces around the room until it is all absorbed or flies out the window. It might be helpful to know where all the energy is all going, rather than saying it is just heat.


 * As I understand it, the blackbody radiation from the filament is typically centered in the mid to far IR. The IR cut-off for the glass is typically around 1500 to 2000 nanometers, so any radiation longer than this wavelength is absorbed by the glass. The total conversion efficiency (total radiation output/watts) is indeed ~10%. (This includes UV, visible, and near-IR.) The rest of the radiation is absorbed by the glass and re-emitted as convection or radiation of a much lower wavelength. Some energy is also wasted as thermal conduction from the filament, or lost in the wiring and connections, or is just a victim of pure entropy. (Interestingly enough, I saw on Nova yesterday that a 120 volt, 100 watt incandescent bulb will put off the same amount of light when operated on just 12 volts, provided that the wiring is cryogenic superconductors.) It might be helpful to briefly explain something about conversion efficiency before defining luminous efficiency and efficacy, and explaining why it is lower (less than 5%). (Just a thought.) Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It might also be useful to explain how lamps of higher wattage become more efficient. (If I remember correctly, beyond 1500 watts, incandecent lamps become much more efficient.) Also, if you live in cold environment, like mine, the emitted heat is not necessarily wasted, because it has a direct effect on my heating bill. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"When used for lighting in houses and commercial buildings, the energy lost to heat can significantly increase the energy required by a building's air conditioning system, although during the heating season such heat is not all wasted, but is not as effective as the heating system." is a very biased characterization of the article cited. The article's author goes on to say "As always, of course, there are some exceptions that may just prove the rule. Most notably, as Paul Wheaton demonstrated in his excellent video on heating the person, not the house, task lighting using an incandescent bulb and a shade/reflector can act as a useful heat lamp, providing heat exactly where it is needed and not warming up the surrounding air. In fact, it's something I'm considering deploying in my own efforts to heat my home office efficiently." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.255.222 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012
I wanted to edit it by myself, but page is protected. Please edit table "Comparison of efficacy by power" and include 230Volt light bulbs also. So one can compare differences between 120Volt and 230Volt lights sources.

Dusan Hlavaty (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can provide the details for the alternative voltage bulbs which you wish to add - and a reliable source for the data, please reactivate this request, so that someone may add your information.
 * Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: OK, I was trying to update "Comparison of efficacy by power" table like this: (All values are well known, because these bulbs are typically available in stores. I cannot find any reasonable source for other wattages like 35 Watt, 55 Watt, ...)

halogen efficacy sentence
"High-quality halogen incandescent lamps have higher efficacy, which will allow a halogen light to use less power to produce the same amount of light compared to a non-halogen incandescent light."

...would be more correct if 'high quality' removed.

While halogen is higher efficacy, they're mostly used in downlighter spotlight format, which results in much higher power being used for a given lighting job. 86.29.7.158 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "High quality" might not be ideal wording, but it's not true that halogen lamps always have higher efficacy. The modern ones probably all do. Bulbs sold in many parts of the world five or ten years ago were typically optimized for longer life, and were not significantly more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs.--Srleffler (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

life comparison
"Incandescent bulbs also have short lifetimes compared with other types of lighting; around 1000 hours for home light bulbs versus up to 10,000 hours for compact fluorescents and up to 100,000 hours for LED lamps."

ave vs max is a poor comparison. CFL is now ave 10k hrs, LED 20-35khrs

lighting LEDs don't have anywhere near the 50-100,00 hr life of indicator LEDs 86.29.7.158 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actual averages as measured in government or industry testing labs, or perhaps by consumer organizations, would be a better comparison that theoretical maximum lives for relatively new technologies. Also, the electronics in LED and CFL bulbs might fail early due to spikes in the electrical supply. Who can promise the utility will not provide any brief periods of high voltage, and there will be no instantaneous spikes from lightning or capacitor bank switching for some long span of years? In a commercial building I know well which installed higher efficiency lighting last year, about 1/4 of the LED bulbs died shortly after installation for unknown reasons.  Certainly this is anecdotal, but it is not anecdotal that there are spikes in utility electric supply and that sometimes the voltage goes way above 130 (on a US 120 norm) for a while due to problems with tap changing transformers at substations or with regulators on the lines.. Another issue is heat. LEDs and CFLs do not like high temperatures which have no effect on incandescents. The newer bulbs may not do well as direct replacements in fully enclosed fixtures, or in locations which get extremely hot in summer.  Any such susceptabilities could be tested but have they been reported? Edison (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 100,000 hours is 11 and a half years. It may take a while to get any long-term studies that uses actual averages. It might be best just to note those are theoretical averages for now. 75.76.68.167 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

""
The usage of has come up at a discussion at talk:carbon (fiber) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014
The United States Patent Office gave a ruling 8 October 1883, that Edison's patents were based on the prior art of William Sawyer and were invalid. Litigation continued for a number of years. Eventually on 6 October 1889, a judge ruled[citation needed] that Edison's electric light improvement claim for "a filament of carbon of high resistance" was valid.

The court case references above, and where "citation needed" is listed, can be found in "Consol. Elec. Light Co v. McKeesport Light Co, 40 F. 21 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1889) aff'd, 159 U.S. 465, 16 S. Ct. 75, 40 L. Ed. 221 (1895)." 152.33.134.39 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks!--Srleffler (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fix reference in "Efforts to improve efficiency"
The reference for the sentence "However, later work indicated that initially promising results were in error." should be to this Applied Physics Letters errata: Addendum: “Three-Dimensional Photonic-Crystal Emitter For Thermal Photovoltaic Power Generation” [Appl. Phys. Lett.83, 380 (2003)], available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/86/24/10.1063/1.1941463

It took a fair bit of digging at both the Sandia website and also on archive.org to uncover the actual errata article. Victor Liu (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why Not a general page called light bulbs?
I have a fantastic picture for light bulbs, which pertain to the standard household light bulb you put in a socket. I just don't know where to put it because there is no page for light bulb/s. And not all of these are incandescent, the picture illustrates the progression of technologies of light bulbs. Rarely have I heard of the bulbs themselves called lamps unless you are referring to the small ones used in electronic devices.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M jurrens (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "light bulb" is a narrower term than "lamp". Several different kinds of lamp can be called a "light bulb", but not all types of lamp can. Right now we have the narrower article Incandescent light bulb, and the broader one on lamps in general. There isn't really a need for an article in between that covers only the types of lamp that can be called light bulbs.
 * I did redirect Light bulb to Lamp (electrical component). The old redirect to this article is clearly not appropriate anymore; common usage of the term has broadened.--Srleffler (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Srleffler and I are discussing what is the most common usage of the term light bulb, and therefore what is the WP:Primary topic for it, at Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation); a WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Short-lived bulbs
Regarding this edit, and its summary: It's not really clear that the primary reason for the lifetime of recent incandescent bulbs has anything to do with the cartel in the 1920's. There is a well-known tradeoff between bulb lifetime on the one hand, and light output and energy efficiency on the other. This article has a whole section on that topic. Manufacturers can make traditional incandescents with as long a life as one wants, but with the inevitable tradeoff that the bulbs would be dim and even more energy inefficient than a typical bulb. The famous centennial bulb has lasted so long partly because its light output is so low. It's a 60 W bulb that puts out about as much light as a 4 W night light.--Srleffler (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, we'd need a pretty strong source before we start throwing the word "cartel" around. The lighting expert Don Klipstein covers this nicely in his website. A decrease in voltage can increase the lifetime dramatically, but at a cost in light output and efficiency. In essence, you could mount a resistor in line with the bulb to create a voltage drop. That would increase your lifetime, but still wouldn't save energy, because suddenly the resistor is generating heat but contributing no light. (e.g. You get an increase in lifetime for a decrease in light, with no energy savings.) The addition of gases over vacuum or halogen were all in a effort to try to increase both lifetime and output, trying to find that happy medium determined by supply and demand. Zaereth (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The "cartel" bit isn't the problem. The article has sources for that claim, and we have a separate article on the cartel. What is not clear is the assertion that the cartel's reduction in bulb lifetime to 1000 hours almost a hundred years ago has anything to do with the lifetime of incandescent bulbs today.--Srleffler (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)