Jump to content

Talk:Incandescent light bulb/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

incandescent street light

Photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-10-31_18_04_57_Recently_activated_incandescent_street_light_along_Fireside_Avenue_in_Ewing,_New_Jersey.JPG replaced.

Here's the light during the day: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014-10-30_11_28_51_Old_street_lamp_on_Fireside_Avenue_in_Ewing,_New_Jersey.JPG

According to this page, its a Crescent Moon-Shaped Claw Incandescent. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/tpirman1982/streetlights1.html Famartin (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at the lamp, it can hardly be described as 'recently activated'. Its style and general condition would suggest that it is pre-war in installation.
I cannot accept anything from the web page that you linked because it is a WP:FANSITE and not acceptable as a reference. Seeing as I found material that stated that New Jersey were replacing all existing incandesent and mercury-vapour street lighting with sodium vapour (dated 2010). And also bearing in mind that no right minded municipal authority would be operating incandescent street lighting in the 21st century, a reliable reference is required that such street lighting is still operating. That you took the photograph of it is not acceptable because that would be original research, and besides we don't how long ago you took the photo. I should remind you that the fact that you restored the material puts the WP:BURDEN of providing the reference firmly on you. No reference - the photo goes.
Please also note that continually restoring challenged and unproven material is a fast track to an editing block. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I googled what you said you googled and found no reference. There is no obvious indication in the photo indicating it is anything other than incandescent. And again you fail to actually list the sources you say you found. Sorry, this isn't over yet. Why must you be argumentative? Famartin (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want to take this to arbitration, be my guest. Famartin (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
And, if all incandescent street lights are supposedly gone in NJ, then why does this handbook dated 2012 from JCPL make multiple mention of replacing incandescents? https://www.firstenergycorp.com/content/dam/customer/OpCoHome/files/JCPL_Municipal_Lighting_Handbook_Final.pdf Their continued mention here would strongly suggest that the lights remain in use. Also, that was not at all very nice to suggest I had falsified the photo date as you did above... I make it a point to ensure my files are properly dated on commons. Famartin (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That handbook is dated 2007—probably too old to be useful in this argument.--Srleffler (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Where do you see a reference to 2007? I load up the PDF and can find no "2007" anywhere in the text. Meanwhile, the first page says "MUNICIPAL LIGHTING HANDBOOK January 2012" Famartin (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That's very strange. When I click on the link you provided above, I see a document whose cover page says "MUNICIPAL LIGHTING HANDBOOK September 2007". If you're following that exact link and seeing what you describe, I can only suppose that the server is for some reason delivering a different version of the document to you than to me for some reason. This is odd, but not impossible.--Srleffler (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Srleffler: Not only not impossible but it seems to be the case. When I click the link I too get a document whose cover says "MUNICIPAL LIGHTING HANDBOOK January 2012". I B Wright (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW, you also misinterpret my use of "recently activated". I don't mean it was just installed. I mean it just turned on that night. Famartin (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
DieSwartzPunkt, note that images are a specific exception to the rules on Original Research. Images are very often original research, and this is explicitly permitted.
The fixture is clearly an old one designed for incandescent bulbs. Zooming in on one of the photos of it unlit, the bulb in it is a clear "A" shape bulb. I can't say for sure that it is incandescent and not some other type of bulb. I'm not sure why the utility would continue to replace the bulbs rather than switching to some other type. Perhaps more efficient bulbs are not available, that fit this old lamp's electrical requirements?--Srleffler (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Not quite the case. Conclusions drawn from illustrations can be original research (WP:SYNTHESIS). There was a case at 9 volt battery where it was deemed that an illustration of what was clearly an alkaline battery showing rectangular cells could not be used to support a claim that some of these batteries did indeed use rectangular cells. Similarly, an illustration of a luminaire fitted with (apparently) an incandescent bulb cannot be used to support a claim that such street luminaires exist(ed) in any particular place at any particular time. The latter two are original research (as in the editor in question is relying on his personal observation). No disrespect to the uploader but the photo could have be taken anywhere at any time, primarily because I cannot verify (WP:VERIFY) either of those points. I B Wright (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion on 9 V batteries actually went the other way and the image of the alkaline battery with rectangular cells is included in the article and described in the caption. I agree with you though that drawing conclusions from images can violate WP:SYNTHESIS. We are allowed to recognize obvious features, however. --Srleffler (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Srleffler:Not the case. You are correct that the illustration remained in the article but the actual claim in the text of the article was removed on the grounds that the illustration could not be used to support the textual claim. I B Wright (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant whether the street light depicted is incandescent, mercury, sodium or a colony of glow worms. Articles are about their subjects. This article is entitled "Incandescent light bulb". The picture in question is not of an "Incandescent light bulb", but of a specific (and apparently questionable) application. This article is not about street lighting and indeed the use in street lighting is not discussed anywhere in the text so the photograph is not illustrating anything in the article. It therefore does not belong there. I B Wright (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this reasoning. Surely a current use of a type of technology is relevant to an article? Famartin (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said, articles are about their subjucts. Illustrations illustrate points covered in the article. The article does not discuss the use of inandescent bulbs in street lighting anywhere, therefore there is no point to illustrate. The article has ample illustrations already. Why do we need an illustration of an (apparently) obsolete use over any other applications especially as the article is not about nor does it address any such applications. I B Wright (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with IBW. Jeh (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with IBW's reasoning here, although I'm not sure whether the article needs this image. It's clearly not out of scope for an article to discuss applications of the article's subject, and that discussion can certainly include historical applications. In this case we have an obsolete or nearly-obsolete application of a technology that is rapidly becoming obsolete. Clearly that is in-scope. The article does not have an "applications" section, though, so I'm not sure whether or if a discussion of street lighting would fit in well anywhere. --Srleffler (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Srleffler: I think you are leading to a separate but relevant discussion here. As you note: the article currently does not make any attempt to discuss applications of the inandescent light bulb. As far as I can tell, this is not covered anywhere else either, which suggests that addressing applications would be well worthwhile, though as this article is quite long already, a separate but linked article might also be a way to go (depending on the amount of material). An illustration of incandescent street lighting would not be out of place in such a section or article. Maybe Famartin would like to have a go?. I B Wright (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it. Might take a bit of time. Famartin (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Good man! If you need any help or advice drop me a request on my talk page. Don't get too upset if I appear to ignore you because I'm not always around, but I will assist where I can. A good place to develop an article or large section is in your own sandbox (link at top of page), and then paste it in when finished (for an article in its own right, you have to request creation, though there is a way around this that is known us old hacks!). This avoids the inevitable problem of others attempting to "improve" a part finished contribution (usually deletion of content that you haven't got around to referencing yet). Good luck. I B Wright (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

"Challoner, Jack etal " = "Challoner, Jack et al.," 66.74.176.59 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Edison being given far too much prominence in article

'They conclude that Edison's version was able to outstrip the others because of a combination of three factors: an effective incandescent material, a higher vacuum than others were able to achieve (by use of the Sprengel pump) and a high resistance that made power distribution from a centralized source economically viable. Historian Thomas Hughes has attributed Edison's success to his development of an entire, integrated system of electric lighting.' Why are we taking one authors opinion on something so important? Edison freely admits that his work were straight copies of Swans and that any improvements came from Joseph Swan's work, yet any reader would assume from reading this article it is all about Edison when it isn't and has never been, talk about non-NPOV. It is entries like this that give credence to critics of Wikipedia who suggest that Wikipedia is far too US-centric. Twobells (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't just delete well-referenced content just because it gives credit to an American invention and you think WP is too US-centric. If there are sources for other opinions, then reference them and provide a balanced "these sources say x, these other ones say y" narrative. You're especially going to need a RS for your "Edison freely admits" claim. In fact, I think at least two RSs, because there are certainly sources describing his lab workers having tried hundreds of different filaments. Also, the fact is that Edison's lighting systems were successful, Swan's bulbs were not, and your deletion of the quotation attributing this to Edison's development of an entire workable system rather than just a light bulb would not be supported even by well-referenced claims that Swan built a better bulb first. Jeh (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Except it isn't an American invention; Swan made the better bulb first, and it was successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.73.23 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Incandescent light bulb which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_6383240_information-old-light-bulbs.html#ixzz1GVHEx8lk
    Triggered by \behow\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --Nigelj (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

nitogen instead of nitrogen

nitogen instead of nitrogen - please add the "r" to make link working

147.32.164.26 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Vladimír Hlaváč

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --Nigelj (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Spectrum

Took a spectrum of an Osram 230V 60W Centra bulb if someone wants to insert it into the page

Spectrum of an Osram 230V/60W incandescent lightbulb taken with an OceanOptics HR2000+ spectrometer

Dr J.D.Good (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm sorry, but it's original research. If you could find a reference that confirms the spectrum that you have obligingly produced, then that would be a different matter. I B Wright (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
See WP:OI. Original research is permitted for images, in general. If the article needs an image of the spectrum, there is no problem with inserting this one.--Srleffler (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Srleffler: Hmmm! Tricky one. I think we are into grey area country here. If I took a measurement of (say) the resistance of the filament of some specific light bulb without backing it with a reference, someone else would brand it original research, and they would be absolutely right. What you are saying is that I can perform the measurement, photograph the reading on the ohmmeter and that would be perfectly alright as OR is permitted for the image. After all, that is effectively what Dr Good has done. I don't somehow think so. Editors could get away with all manner of nonsense in articles (not that I am suggesting that is what Dr Good has done in good faith).
I think the policy is more directed at someone submitting a photograph of some specific subject and the OR is permitted that the photograph is of the subject stated. Infering anything from the image (that the picture of my meter is the resistance of something it is connected to) must be WP:SYNTHESIS - infering something not specifically visible in the image. If I could do that, I could use such an image right now to prove energy from nowhere (from an electrical point of view). I have a battery that can be charged and discharged (powers mobile phones or anything with a USB connecter). However, when I charge it via an ammeter, it indicates zero current (haven't figured that one out yet). By your reasoning, I can write an article on energy from nowhere using the photograph as proof. I don't think so. I B Wright (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The policy covers this: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Unless you are asserting that no-one has ever published a spectrum of a lightbulb or that Dr. Good's spectrum doesn't agree with published spectra, it's perfectly fine to use the image he has created. Verifiability is maintained because anyone can look up a measured spectrum of a lightbulb and check that it is similar to the one displayed here. This is different from how Wikipedia typically handles original research, but this difference is explicit and intentional. This rule is necessary because published spectra are apt to be protected by copyright, just as published photographs are. The only way we can get images, whether photographs, diagrams, drawings, or graphs, is by allowing editors to create them themselves.
Your "energy from nowhere" example would violate the "introduce unpublished ideas" criterion. You can't use an OR image to support a novel or controversial idea.--Srleffler (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. To address the subject image: that it is a photograph of an incandescent street light is acceptable original research. But that it is a street light in a particular place at the current time is not, because that is s novel or unpublished idea especially given that (apparently) New Jersey has had a programme in place since 2007 to replace such fixtures with Sodium lamps. Since the average life of a 1000 hour bulb is just 83 days, they must have all been replaced by now. I B Wright (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(Note that this is not the discussion of the street light image, but I'll reply inline anyway.) I don't think that you can dispute the location and time of that image while assuming good faith. The user has clearly been careful to document the location and time of each image. (This is one of many images of streetlights uploaded to Commons, each having careful notes on the time and location of the image as well as other information.) Assuming good faith, one has to take it that the documentation is correct. I don't really think there is any doubt at this point that this is an original incandescent fixture that was still extant at the claimed time, and note that I was the first to remove the image from the article due to doubt about what it claimed to show. The only fact that I think is really debateable at this point is whether this fixture is still operating using an incandescent light bulb, or whether the utility has installed some other type of bulb in it. And before you object: I agree that we should not attempt to extract that information from the image, except to satisfy our own curiosity. I think, however, that the image could be used in the article as an illustration of an incandescent street lighting fixture, without making the claim that it is still operating as such.--Srleffler (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This spectrum is probably a good example of why original research is not permitted. The ocean optics spectrometer is not calibrated, so the spectrum is a function not just of the light source intensity, but also of the detector's efficiency, the grating's efficiency, and the efficiency's of any other optical components (e.g., the fiber optic cable that is often used with Ocean Optics spectrometers, or the lenses that may have been used. The true spectrum doubtless has more energy at longer wavelengths, but the detector has lower sensitivity to those longer wavelengths. The result is that the uncalibrated spectrum does not match the true spectrum. Achem (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point, but it seems like splitting hairs to me. The visible wavelengths are usually the ones of greater interest. The glass itself typically has rather poor transmissivity to the IR wavelengths. According to Don Klipstein, the radiation gets even more intense all the way down to the far IR, but all that enegy is absorbed by the glass rather than transmitting through. It is then either emitted at even lower wavelengths or lost through conduction and convection. Upon closer examination, I'd say this graph is probably a pretty good representation of the blackbody curve on ones side meeting the cut-off curve for the glass bulb on the other. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Even in the visible, there are significant efficiency differences with wavelength. Sure, glass has pretty even transmission across the visible, but diffraction gratings and charged coupled device (CCD) detectors do not. In fact, this spectrum looks a lot more like a typical CCD efficiency curve than it does a light bulb spectrum. Achem (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't really argue the technical points on the tester itself. I'm just comparing the graph to other graphs I've seen. Of course, results will also vary depending on the type of glass, the color temperature of the lamp, and whether it's frosted or not, but this chart seems to closely match a 3000 K lamp. For example, see: Florida State University , Light and Light Sources: High-Intensity Discharge Lamps , Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation , or Practical Lighting Design with LEDs . The point is that, even if there are some calibration errors, it appears to me (based on reliable sources) to be close enough for a general depiction of the typical spectrum. The only way to get a true, blackbody reading is to eliminate the glass bulb and test some white-hot tungsten, using multiple testers calibrated for different ranges. Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that this graph does not fall into the realm of some novel approach or conclusion. It is simply the results of a spectrometer test, which is really no different than a photograph. It's just a different form of imaging and, as long as we know the method and apparatus used, it seems to me like nothing more than a good-faith gesture to provide us with a useful image. Dr. Good was thoughtful enough to provide us with information on the spectrometer, plus some on the bulb itself. It would be helpful to have more info about the lamp. (Perhaps the type, model, and the coating (if any) would be very helpful.) Other than that, it closely matches other sources and I see no reason why we should not add it to the article. Zaereth (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ill replace the graph with a calibrated spectrum, measured in the visible, it will be slightly OR, but there is not really any research involved, it a straight forward measurement if you know what you are doing. Thorseth (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is the file, i hope it will pass, if there is a problem I am sure I can find a source to back it up.Thorseth (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Incandescent light bulb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2016

Please add

to the References Secion. Thank you! Hoschdebacha (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Added as an external link; the link is not a reference.--Srleffler (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

mistake in reference 73

sorry I'm not logged in now and can't fix this myself- reference #73 has the year 2026 instead of 2016, please fix. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.160.223 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. --McSly (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Efficiency

The conversation about "waste heat" is a regional one. I live in the pacific northwest where all electricity comes from hydropower. A kilowatt costs 7 cents and natural gas is only slightly cheaper at the moment. My townhouse could have been built with a central heating system for the 40 units, but it was way cheaper for the contractor to install electric baseboard heating. For the 200 heating days a year here I don't save a penny by reducing the heat given off by lighting. One watt of lighting produces the same amount of heat as one watt of baseboard heater. If I lived in a region that had 200 air conditioner days per year the situation would be reversed, any heat given off by lighting would drive up the costs at the air conditioner. Or if I lived in an area where electricity was 30 cents a kilowatt my townhouse would probably be heated by natural gas and the heat given off by lighting would be a more expensive source. So when talking about waste and efficiency lets take a broad view of the world. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

When talking efficiency, we have to take into account what the piece of equipment was designed for. In this case, it is the production of light, so all other forms of energy it produces is called waste. I live in Alaska, so much of that waste heat is actually helping reduce my heating bill. This is called "recoverable energy" or "conservation of entropy." However, that's irrelevant to the light bulb itself, because its purpose is not to generate heat but light. As an example, I can power my cabin with a generator, which is its designed purpose, but then I can also conserve some of the entropy by funneling cold air from the outside, through the radiator, and into the cabin to provide heat. I can conserve more by using the coolant to heat a large tank of water, and use that to heat the cabin at night when the generator is shut down, but none of that changes the conversion efficiency of energy from gas to electricity. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Dougmcdonell, you're correct, but this point is already mentioned in the article: see the last line of the Cost of lighting section. In general, it's hard to waste energy indoors when it is cold outside; almost all waste energy ends up as heat one way or another. Unless the heat is going down the drain (hot water), it probably ends up contributing to warming the air, reducing the load on the heating system. If the building is air conditioned in the summer, the net effect over the whole year is certainly a loss.--Srleffler (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, many buildings were designed around an integration of lighting and heating requirements, and deliberately relied on the heat given off by the lighting to maintain a constant base temperature in the building, and thus reduce additional heating requirements. In some of these buildings the main lights were kept on 24 hours a day in the winter, because it was part of the building's heating requirement. This is not "waste" heat or "recoverable" energy, but part of the basic design structure of the building's environment. The continuous lighting also reduced the need for additional security lighting systems. The main library at the engineering college I attended was designed in this way, back in the 80s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 January 2016‎
You are describing conservation of entropy. These terms have very specific meanings within a scientific context, which differ from everyday use, so try not too get hung up on semantics. If an energy-conversion machine produces energy that it is not designed to, that is called waste. If someone else decides to recover that waste and make use of it, that is called negative entropy (negentropy) and is great, but the manufacturer cannot predict all of that, nor the efficiency of the entire light-bulb/heater/building system. All the light bulb manufacturer can do is describe the output and waste from their single product. It is up to the building designer to take that information and incorporate it into their overall plan.
And Srleffler is correct, because in warm climates, where AC is used for even part of the year and it gets dark in the summer, the entropy produced by the light bulb becomes "anti-work," causing the AC to work much harder literally pumping heat outside, quickly resulting in a net loss. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any need to get so technical here. In the context of the system (the building), during the heating system the heat from lamps is not "waste heat". When talking about the bulbs, any energy that is not emitted as light is waste. Like a lot of things, context matters. --Srleffler (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Light bulb" no longer means "Incandescent light bulb"

My thesis is, simply, "Light bulb" no longer means "Incandescent light bulb". With Incandescent bulbs actively discouraged in at least the US, "Light bulb" needs to talk about Incandescent, Halogen, Fluorescent, and LED on equal terms. (Yes, I know many types of each exist.)--Laguna CA (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

But this article is called "Incandescent light bulb", not "Light bulb", which, in fact, redirects to the generic Lamp (electrical component)... LjL (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This issue was discussed and settled long ago. That's why Light bulb doesn't redirect here.--Srleffler (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

grammatical mistakes

the countries prohibited should be---,---,---and--- not ---,---,---or--- because or represents that only one country in list prohibits it. Ron Cho (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Typo

Hi Wikipedia editors, there's a typo in the following line

"This company didn't made their first commercial installation of incandescent lamps until..."

The word made should be make, can someone change it? I'd edit it myself but the article is protected. Thanks!

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Incandescent light bulb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Jobard

Please change "In 1838 a Belgian by the name of Jobard invented an incandescent light bulb" to

"In 1838, Belgian lithographer Marcellin Jobard invented an incandescent light bulb"

I'd do it myself, but the page is protected. Thank you!

(GooglyMoogly (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC))

 Done —BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

Add Swan British Patent no. 4933 of 1880. 101.175.46.151 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done. Precisely what would you like to add about the patent? Swan's patent is described in detail in Joseph Swan and reciting the patent number here is probably too much detail. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Incandescent light bulb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Giuseppe Ponzelli

@Srleffler: I've looked into Giuseppe Ponzelli, the monk who supposedly first theorized incandescence, and the earliest source I could find was "The pageant of the lamp: the story of the electric lamp", which was a book written by the General Advertising Company of London commissioned by the Edison Swan Electric Company in 1940. This is probably an unreliable source, but it sounds like every source afterwards (including the one in our article) used this unreliable source, as they use similar wording to the original: "Guiseppe Ponzelli, an Italian scientist and monk, advanced the theory in 1747."

I tried to edit the article to indicate the potential unreliability of this source (despite being repeated in other academic works) in this revision, but it got reverted due to being, well, an unreliable source. Unfortunately, this doesn't make our existing source more reliable. If we're not using my revision, we should remove the factoid entirely. Of course, removing it risks the chance of having it added again in good faith. --Skrapion (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I've confirmed the source. Sustainable indoor lighting includes The Genesis of Incandescent Lamp Manufacture in its bibliography, and The Genesis of Incandescent Lamp Manufacture in turn referenced The Pageant of the Lamp. I don't have access to the full text of The Pageant of the Lamp, but a text search indicates there's no bibliography or references section, so I don't know where they got Ponzelli from. I'm going to go ahead and remove the factoid. --Skrapion (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
A bit of OR on my part, but if it helps this may come from a dictionary which Ponzelli wrote in 1747 called Vocabulario degli accademici della crusca, in which the word incandescens is defined on page 99 as "infocatiffimo." I don't speak Italian, but research indicates this seems to be an archaic word (not in use in Italy today) which meant "fiery." Zaereth (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Skrapion. Removing the claim may well be the right course of action, but our reliable source rule does not require us to evaluate our source's sources. The presumption is that a reliable source is created by authors and editors who do some degree of fact-checking. We are permitted to presume that a claim like this one, in a book published by a major academic publisher, has been checked somehow against primary sources etc. even if the author's original source was "The pageant of the lamp".--Srleffler (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing to question the sources, because sources often do contain wrong information, but ultimately we need better sources that make that conclusion. (Lack of evidence is not proof.) A simple example is the notion that honey, found in Egyptian tombs, is perfectly preserved and still as good as new today. The idea defies the laws of physics and chemistry, yet the same story has prevailed for decades, and can even be found from seemingly reliable sources like the Smithsonian. Yet further research shows that these archeologists in fact did not break out their Ritz crackers right there in the tomb and start eating 3000 year old honey. The common practice is to leave containers of liquid sealed, and modern scans now show many of these were not honey at all but other things like castor oil. Even more research and sources finally reveal that the myth originated when a newspaper reporter misquoted one of the scientists who discovered King Tut's tomb in 1922, and has stuck around ever since.
I was interested to look up some of Ponzelli's writings in the hope of finding such a study, but the dictionary was all I could find. (The word was apparently taken from incandescere, meaning "a blazing or white-hot look in someone's eyes.") People had obviously known about incandescence for thousands of years. I was hoping to find an actual study, but if one exists it's not available on the internet. It would be interesting to see, because the phlogiston theory was still in vogue at that time. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just thought I'd drop this here. I don't know a word of Italian but from what little I was able to gather from google translate it seems that light does feature prominently in this 1747 book by Ponzelli. Perhaps we can enlist the service of one of Wikipedia's Italian editors?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X8YSG2fb8CsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Giuseppe+Ponzelli&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixjer_sa_VAhVlCsAKHY6FDwAQ6AEIZTAJ#v=onepage&q=Luce&f=false::::SQMeaner (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
That is very interesting. The book details a large number of electrical experiments and their results. I don't speak Italian, but much of the etymology is the same as English, so I can parse my way through it. (This is a rather archaic dialect, which makes it easier for me.) Most of these experiments are trying to determine the nature of what he calls the "electric material", that is, the stuff which electricity is made of. For instance, in one experiment he compares the light of an electric spark to the sunlight reflected (or refracted) from water droplets, like the glimmering sparks from the splash off a row-boat's ore. There is a lot of speculation about this water-like nature of electricity. However, I can find no mention of the word incandescence nor any experiments linked to it. The only thing close is an experiment which mentions "infocati", but this is trying to determine the electrical properties of materials when heated on a stove.
One thing to consider is that this book was written a good twenty years before the first battery was developed. In those days, electricity consisted only of sparks. The arc was still a long way off, and without a DC current, there was no way possible for someone to heat a filament with it. I seriously doubt the idea ever crossed anyone's mind at that time. That said, I don't speak Italian, so perhaps someone will come along and find something in this book I may have missed. Zaereth (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The effects the light bulb had on the US.

I think this page should include what the light bulb affected in America and how it changed society and its people. Alyvia2000 (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That would probably interesting, not just the US but also worldwide. This would require someone to find reliable sources that discuss it. If you have the time and access to such sources, please feel free to either propose some specific changes here and someone will come along and insert them for you. Or, you can make some constructive edits to other pages and in a few days your account will be autoconfirmed. Then you'll be able to edit this article yourself. Thanks for the suggestion. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This allows for greater temperatures and therefore greater efficacy

Regarding inert gas fill, the article says: This allows for greater temperatures and therefore greater efficacy with less reduction in filament life. This isn't completely true. Note that the gas takes some heat away from the filament, reducing the efficacy. It is, then, a balance between the two. For lower power lamps, maybe 40W or less on 120V, vacuum is still better. And yes, coiled and coiled coil help, but again more for higher power lamps. Gah4 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Efficiency and efficacy aren't exactly the same things. If a filament can run hotter due to better cooling or higher melting point, it is able to produce more visible light and reduce some IR. For example, carbon-arc lamps incandesce at around 7600 degree F, thus produce far more visible light and a closer spectrum to the sun. Since the goal is to produce visible light, it is possible to increase efficacy at a cost in efficiency. To put it simply, the bulb can be less efficient yet more effective.) Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, incandescent lamps are 100% efficient on converted electrical energy into electromagnetic radiation. Much of it, though, is out of the visible spectrum. Efficacy, then, is used to compare the ability to generate visible light, including the spectral sensitivity of the eye. But okay, you can increase the efficacy of any incandescent bulb by increasing the power, but that also reduced the life. Gas allows increased power without as much decrease in life. You can't compare efficacy without also considering life. In any case, the optimal efficacy life value for lower power lamps is for vacuum, and higher power for gas filled. (With some dependence on line voltage, also.) Gah4 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The 3 light bulb problem

the correct order is A B C because the left battery has more power if you did the easter egg right by setting the battery from the other problem on fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.225.119.1 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Planned obsolescence

A brief mention of planned obsolescence should be considered in this article. Now, there's just a short paragraph that touches the Phoebus cartel with price fixing and sales quotas. Please correct me if wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksmoe (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about cartels and quotas, but there is a life vs. efficacy balance for incandescent lamps. If you include the actual costs for replacement, that can shift the balance. I suspect that since the beginning of incandescent lamp production, consumers have complained about the lifetime. Lamps sold for home use are optimized for low replacement cost, those for industrial use for higher replacement cost. Gah4 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Spurious claim removed

I just removed a spurious claim that incandescent bulbs "have been banned" in Australia. This is nonsense, incandescent bulbs are readily available in all the expected retail locations. They are sold alongside LED and CFL globes. Incandescent globe products typically account for around 15-20% of the total light globe shelf space in supermarkets and hardware stores, with that proportion slowly shrinking. These days, incandescents are generally consigned to the highest or lowest shelves where slower-selling and lower-margin products go. So they are fading away in the marketplace, but claims of a "ban" are absurd.

Note that the footnote claiming that incandescent globes are "banned" in Australia (a) if from a Chilean source (nothing to do with Australia) and (b) in Spanish, so it is difficult for readers of American language Wikipedia to detect the falsehood.

I suggest that other readers with appropriate knowledge check the other countries named as they are quite likely false also. - User:Tannin

Your edit seems fine to me. I don't know of any bans on them. Here in the US the legislation alone would likely take longer than for them to fade out of existence, but I still find them in stores. Personally, I prefer them for reading lamps and doing artwork due to the better color rendering. What I have noticed is (typical of this type of industry) that the bulbs available are not constructed as well as they used to be. Aside from halogen, all I find are vacuumed bulbs instead of gas filled, which of course reduces the life. (Although it negates the need to provide a built-in fuse to prevent an arc flash, as the filament itself becomes a fuse.) I imagine that is how they will eventually go extinct (likely with fluorescents to follow soon). It would be interesting to find some sources about that. Zaereth (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
US is slowly banning incandescent lamps, but, so far, leaving an exception for specialty bulbs, such as rough service (common for lamps on ceiling fans). If people really want them, they can use rough service for ordinary lamps. Also, I suspect that it will take a little longer for a replacement for oven lamps, which again could be used for ordinary lamps. Gah4 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What was the lifetime of Swan's 1879 bulb?

I've been looking for an answer to this question for a while and I haven't found anything definite. There are a lot of different answers to this question on the internet but few, if any, of them make reference to primary sources and most of them seem to contradict each other (such as the 'lighting a revolution citation on the main page which claims that Swan's 1879 bulb was still subject to soot darkening it even though it's claimed earlier on in the article that Swan had solved this problem by 1878.). If anyone has a definite answer to this question it would be appreciated if you could post it here.SQMeaner (talk)

Originally, just a few minutes. According to the book Chronology of Tech History (page 25), the bulbs he demonstrated to the Newcastle Chemical Society in 1878 lasted just under 40 hours. All incandescent bulbs experience some level of darkening, but that is a big problem with carbon (even in modern carbon-filament lamps used in decorative lighting). The biggest help for this was gas-filling, followed by halogen-filling to redeposit the atoms back onto the filament. Edison was apparently the first to break the 40 hour mark, and with some fanfare it appears. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If that's the case then I think the claim that Swan's 1879 bulb had a short lifetime should be removed, as Edison's 1879 bulb, considered by many to be the first practical bulb, only lasted 13 hours.SQMeaner (talk)
That's the only source I could find that listed a time frame, but there was no great detail. The entire book is basically a timeline of events. Most sources are ambiguous. There is a book which is likely to give some detail, called Sir Joseph Swan and the Invention of the Incandescent Electric Lamp, by Kenneth R. Swan (1948). Unfortunately, no preview is available on Google. You may actually have to go to a library to look it up. Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sources typically credit Edison with a 13.5 hour bulb life in October 1879. [1] says Swann's 1879 bulb lasted "several hours." It was realized very early in lightbulb development that there was a tradeoff between creating a lower efficiency, dimmer bulb which lasted a long time and a higher efficiency , brighter bulb which lasted a shorter time. By mid 1880 Edison produced bulbs with 1200 hour lifetimes, per [2] and [3], or 600 hours per [4]. Perhaps Swann's technology followed a similar curve. Edison (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. There is a direct relation between lifetime, resistance and current. Swan's first bulbs were barely able to achieve red-hotness before burning up. It's easy to forget that these guys didn't just have to invent a lamp, but also balance that with an adequate power supply. (You couldn't just plug into a 120V outlet back then.) There is little detail in most sources, except that when Edison finally achieved 100 hours the bulb was roughly 60 watts with a efficacy of 1.4. It's difficult to quantify without all of that knowledge. Zaereth (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright I went and got that book by Kenneth R. Swan but it wasn't very helpful. It doesn't mention how long the bulb lasts or really anything I couldn't find on the internet. Does anyone know of any reliable or authoritative sources on the history of Swan's light bulb they'd be willing to share?SQMeaner (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw this article on Wired that says his early bulbs, using a carbon-arc rod for a filament, lasted about 13 hours, and the ones demonstrated at Newcastle Chemical Society, using a carbon thread, lasted about 40. Part of his difficulty was using thick filaments with low resistance, requiring a huge amount of current to run. There were also difficulties in obtaining a near-perfect vacuum (even after good pumps were developed) because oxygen adheres to the glass; it was Edison who discovered that the glass needed to be heated to nearly red-hot during the vacuum pumping to get the oxygen to release. (Something well-known in lighting manufacture today, but not so much back then.) Beyond that, I've seen some other books that mention Swan's 13 and 40 hour lifetimes, but you may have to do some serious digging on Google Books to find them. (I'd suggest going deep, and trying many different combinations of key words.) I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright I'm reasonably confident that Swan's 1878 bulb lasted 40 hours so I added that in, along with a little bit of information from that book I got. I also got rid of the Smithsonian reference as it seems to be unreliable and contradicts earlier information in the article.SQMeaner (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
By such a measure Elon (or another EV mfg) is the inventor of the automobile. 0.9km vs 4.8km per kWh? Edison may have refined (dubious) the bulb and used patent law to extinguish any competition, but is nowhere close to being the inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducklordd (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Who invented the automobile is very dependent on how you define an automobile. If you define it as simply a wheeled vehicle with some horsepower, then it was likely the Hittites or Egyptians. If you define it as a horseless chariot, then it would likely be the first steam-powered vehicle. If your definition includes fossil fuels, then that came even later. If it includes bucket seats and air bags... Most inventions are simply improvements on previous designs. That said, Edison was nothing if not a master promoter, so I've no doubt that the idea of him being the sole inventor is one that he himself put into motion.
I might also add that the definition of "inventor" may also vary. For example, one of the most famous cases involves the invention of the laser. It was Charles Townes' idea, however, Ted Maiman was the first to build one. By US law that makes Maiman the inventor. However, before the first one was ever made a guy named Gordon Gould filed for a patent, so after a 30 year court battle he was finally granted a patent for the use of flashtubes in lasers. (The "weed-eater" is another good example. The guy who invented it ran over to show his neighbor. His neighbor patented it, and the guy who actually invented it never made a dime, because the US is a first-to-file country.) What many people don't realize is that there are three major factors that determine whether or not you can get a patent, which are product, non-obviousness, and usefulness. You have to have a specific product, you can't patent electromagnetism, like the inventor of the telegraph Samuel Morse tired to do. It must be non-obvious, as in something novel and not just the logical next-step. And it must be useful, which is self-explanatory.
What Edison really did was not simply invent an improved version of the light bulb, but he create an entire electrical system and power grid to run them, one that would not have been possible with Swan's designs because the current was just too high. Similarly, Harold Edgerton is credited with inventing the flashtube, even though it was General Electric who manufactured them, because they we're useless without the circuitry to run them. Zaereth (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I might also add that Edison's system, albeit practical, would still have required a power plant on virtually every other street corner due to resistance and inductance losses in the wiring. In my humble opinion, the one who really deserves credit for making the modern light-bulb (as well as motors, transformers, AC electricity, multimeters, remote controls, and everything else we take for granted today) would be Tesla. I think this article should mention more about his contributions to the field. It was really the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago where the first, truly modern light bulbs were demonstrated on a scale much larger than was possible with Edison's designs. Zaereth (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, the first person to set fire to an onion or garlic bulb may well be the original inventor of the lightbulb. But that's a pretty far-fetched definition of what we are talking about. Usually we don't credit derivative works as being part of the original invention, we let them stand on their own. So why do we make exceptions for businessmen who write their own history? In these cases, well written encyclopedias will usually create a timeline marking all relevant inventions for the thing, not giving any one of the inventions undue weight over the other. However, the electrical system powering a thing is only related to the thing if you want to drag in topics about the exceptionality of certain pioneering personas or business power plays these people were involved in. IMO those topics are better explained on their own individual pages. Ducklordd (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As well as I know it, Edison designed one for higher voltage and lower current, which could be supplied over reasonable (though we wouldn't say that today) distances. That means a much thinner (and longer) filament, which is more sensitive to oxidation, and other failure modes. I suppose with AC, one could have run Swan lamps, each with their own transformer. As noted above, Edison invented the whole system, including constant voltage generators. Gah4 (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The expected life span of halogen lights is also generally longer compared to non-halogen incandescent lights, and halogen

The statement The expected life span of halogen lights is also generally longer compared to non-halogen incandescent lights, and halogen is pretty much true when the comparison is appropriate. If, for example, you compare projector lamps (an early application for halogen lamps for home use) to non-halogen projector lamps, operated at the appropriate voltage. Some projectors have a higher power (and shorter life) option, which might make it less than a typical non-halogen lamp operated at nominal voltage. Also, some lamps are specifically optimized for higher power and shorter life. On the other hand, it isn't fair to compare a projector lamp against a table lamp bulb, as the trade-offs are different. And of course any lifetime is typical, where any individual lamp may last a much longer or much shorter time. Similarly, long life non-halogen bulbs, operating at lower than normal temperature, should not be compared against halogen lamps operated under normal conditions, at nominal voltage. Gah4 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right, however that I a lot of detailed information for one article, because then we're really getting deep into the design and engineering of lamps. I think it's better to focus on the general gist of it, which is: The deterioration of incandescent bulbs is due to the evaporation of the filament (something John Strong exploited in the manufacture of mirror coatings). In vacuum, this evaporation is very fast. By filling a bulb with an inert gas, the evaporation could be slowed down but not eliminated. By changing the inert gas to a reactive halogen, the evaporated metal could be redeposited back onto the filament, slowing down deterioration even more. That could probably be explained better here, but getting into all the variables may be difficult in a general article like this (may be more appropriate for a sub-article). It might be worth noting that introducing a gas created an entirely new problem (no benefit comes without a drawback). With a gas, when the filament finally gives out and breaks, an arc flash not only can but most certainly will form. This arc needed to be extinguished very quickly (faster than you could rely on a circuit breaker) before the bulb exploded or worse. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
For the same temperature, sure, halogen bulbs last longer. But temperature is a bulb design parameter that the designer is free to adjust, trading off life for color temperature and efficacy. A halogen bulb can be designed for longer life, but when I survey the halogen bulbs at my local hardware store, the majority are not designed for longer life. The halogen bulbs are mostly 1000-hour bulbs, same as the standard incandescent bulbs. The designers are aiming for improved efficacy and a higher temperature, with the same life as standard incandescents. Set lighting, for example, is dominated by halogens with a typical life of around 200 hours. So it's not a very good generalization to say that halogen bulbs tend to last longer than standard incandescents. It really depends on the individual bulb design. Balazer (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I have some actual, from before all the recent changes, 100W soft white lamps, which are rated at 750 hours. So, the 1000 hour halogen lamps last a little longer. The US now has restrictions on the lumens/watt for some lamps, which allow for some halogen lamps. That might shift the design point from where it would otherwise be. But halogen lamps are more complicated to make, and so cost more. That would shift the optimum point a little longer than for non-halogen. As for set lighting, again, it should only be compared to non-halogen set lighting. I might have a catalog old enough to have some of these. Gah4 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I can produce plenty of counter examples, but all of that really misses the point. The point is that halogen gases prolong the life of the filament, and that effect can be utilized to make a bulb that burns hotter, lasts longer, or a bit of both. It doesn't mean halogen bulbs last longer on average. A lot of halogen bulbs are very hot bulbs with short lives, and have no equivalent standard incandescent. Balazer (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The optimal life is that which minimizes the cost of the lamp, plus the cost of power, plus the cost to change the lamp. (I suppose also a term for inconvenience of burning out at inopportune times.) Halogen lamps are harder to make, especially as fused silica is harder to work with. With appropriate economy of scale, the cost is coming down, but will likely always be more. As I said a few times now, you can only compare lamps that are otherwise similarly used. Compare projection lamps with projection lamps, studio lamps with studio lamps, and household lamps with household lamps. But also as noted above, legal requirements might shift away from the optimal point. But otherwise, a more expensive lamp shifts the optimal point to longer life, everything else equal. Gah4 (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Curve needed in Incandescent_light_bulb#Current_and_resistance

It be useful if this section gave an idea of the shape of the curve between current & resistance in the section Incandescent_light_bulb#Current_and_resistance.
A graphic with a decent caption would be best. — Lentower (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This graph is the only one I find on commons. It shows the temperature dependency in terms of voltage and resistance. You can calculate current from that. Otherwise, it's basically the same as a tungsten wire of the same length and diameter. (I found another graph that is in terms or temperature and resistivity, but it only shows gold, platinum, and mercury.) Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, it will be different for different lamps, especially for different wattage (and voltage) for similar lamps. The power laws around the operating point are known, which would give you the derivative of the curve near the operating point. As well as I know it, for 120V lamps, low wattage (25 and less) are vacuum, higher wattage (60 and up) gas filled. (I am not sure about 40W.). This comes between the trade-off between filament evaporation (and so lamp life) and temperature (light output), and heat loss to the gas. For 240V lamps, the cross-over point moves up. For an appropriately typical lamp, it would be nice to have a curve, though. Gah4 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the difference. The resistance of a metal is far more dependent on diameter and length than temp, whereas the resistivity is independent of diameter and length. Heat loss is not a factor if measuring the actual temperature, because then all that matters is how hot it is rather than how much energy is passing through it, but that's a difficult thing to measure accurately. It would be impractical to show a diagram for every different bulb, but we can label this one as a V-R graph of a 12V, 60W automotive lamp, as shown. Other sizes should follow a similar curve, which a quick search of google seems to confirm. Zaereth (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the heat loss for intermediate voltage/current/power/temperature will be proportionally different for different lamp designs. Gas vs. vacuum will be different. Coiled vs. coiled coil, too. Also, the lamp in the graph is, I believe, a halogen lamp. Not that it is bad, but different. Gah4 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I was just trying to help Lentower find that curve they wanted, so they can decide if it suits them. I don't think it would hurt to include it in the article if they want, lacking a better one, perhaps with a short description of the things you mention (sourced of course). It's not uncommon in such situation to pick one as an example, but I'd be careful not to stray too far into textbook data, because all we really need for an encyclopedia is the gist of it. Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It might be nice to find a non-halogen bulb as more typical, but maybe close enough. Gah4 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's called a "lamp," not a "bulb."

The correct term for the object being described by the article is incandescent lamp.  "Bulb" refers only to the glass envelope that encloses the filament. 38.69.12.5 (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a redirect from incandescent lamp. I don't know if one or the other as the actual page name is better. See if anyone else discusses it here. Gah4 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The term "light bulb" is commonly used to describe the object this article is about, and is not incorrect. See Merriam-Webster dictionary, for example. We prefer to use common names for article titles, not more technical terms. See WP:COMMONNAME.--Srleffler (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to me that WP:COMMONNAME could change over time. One that I found some years ago is Ethernet hub which should be repeater. But for some years hub (which describes topology) was used for repeaters, the only hubs available. But, things change over time. With incandescent lamps being replaced more and more by fluorescent lamps and LEDs, maybe it won't be long before people forget about incandescent bulbs. For now, the title seems fine to me. Gah4 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Although technical usage differs (see for example distributors of electronic components such as Mouser or Digi-Key), in common usage a "lamp" is generally an appliance that sits on a table, desk, or floor. "Table lamp", "floor lamp", etc. On the other hand, I have yet to see the word "lamp" appear on a box of "light bulbs" in consumer-oriented commerce. Jeh (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I looked at all the packages that I have nearby, and in the big words on the front, none said lamp. I have one package of "general purpose halogen bulbs" that, in the warning section, says "Do not exceed rated voltage. Do not use lamp if outer glass is scratched or broken, even if bulb continues to light." also "Allow lamp to cool before handling. Lamp may shatter and cause injury if broken. Do not use lamp if outer glass is scratched or broken. Dispose of lamp in a closed container." So, yes it says "lamp", but only in the fine print. Gah4 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
That's getting into a bit of OR; fine for a discussion, but... What we're really talking about here are words not things. Encyclopedias are about things, not words. Dictionaries are about words --and their definitions are not listed in random order. Be glad you're not working on a dictionary, because those linguists must study the changing language constantly to find not only every possibly definition, but also to list them in order of most common use, so in these situations a dictionary is the RS I'd defer to. Zaereth (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Although the word "lamp" can refer to light bulbs by themselves (see dictionary) the word more commonly refers to the entire device, from wall-plug to fixture cover (everything you would have to include to measure the conversion efficiency. For example, a fluorescent tube is useless by itself. People often call them fluorescent bulbs (even though they are not bulb-shaped). It doesn't become a lamp until it is connected to a ballast and fixture. Same with flashtubes. The most common definition of "lamp" is "an electric device having a socket for a light bulb, especially a free-standing piece of furniture", much as Jeh described.
And yes, language does change over time, but often in unexpected, illogical, and unpredictable ways. I hear people referring to LED lights as "bulbs". It may become that all light-emitting elements of a lamp are referred to as "bulbs". We can't predict how it changes, nor should we try to push our own preferences. Like all encyclopedias and dictionaries, we just deal with it as it happens. Zaereth (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Technically, the term 'bulb' refers to the glass envelope. However WP:COMMONNAME usage is such that the incandescent 'lamp' has always been referred to as a 'light bulb'. Thomas Edison called the invention a 'light bulb' when he stole it, and almost everyone in the English speaking world calls it that. And many (but not all) foreign language descriptions translate out that way as well (such as 'ampoule à incandescence' in French).
Interestingly, the compact fluorescent replacement has mostly been known as 'compact fluorescent lamp'. However, its subsequent replacement, the LED jobbie, is mostly known as an 'LED light bulb' or more usually just 'LED bulb' (probably because many designs closely resemble their filament predecessors). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - a light bulb is a light bulb as it is bulb-shaped and emits light. Edison used bulbs in his early lamps - which were very basic, consisting of the bulb and over-voltage protection gear. It's quite clear lamps predate light bulbs and has been stated are the complete unit such as desk lamp, standard lamp etc. but also include gas lamp and oil lamp - among others. A light bulb on the other hand is quite distinct from all of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.0.33 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bulb - internal coating "names"

Construction section refers to internal coated glass or clear BULBS. Alternative names for such should be added: 'frosted' and 'pearl' come to mind. Also, it'd be good if it answered the question does 'pearl' come from pearlescent ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.0.33 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely not, as "pearlescent" is a combination of the words "pearl" and "iridescence", literally translating as "the essence of pearls", referring to the colors produced from the layered structure, due to thin-film interference, rather than the underlying white. It's hard to say why certain names were chosen over others. My guess would be it's simply because of the shape and white color, resembling a pearl (without the iridescence), but that's pure speculation on my part. We would need a source that actually says that. The problem with figuring this stuff out is that language changes and morphs over time in unusual, unpredictable, and unexpected ways. (For example, to use my favorite example, in Old English, the word "gear" meant "habits and mannerisms". In Middle English, it came to mean, "arms, goods, or supplies carried with a person". In the Renaissance, it meant, "any internal workings of a machine". It was only during the last century that it came to mean, "a wheel with interlocking teeth." Another example is "dog", a word with a very mysterious origin. In Old English, canines were called "hunds" (hounds). Somewhere in Middle English, the word "dog" mysteriously appeared, referring to a specific breed of canine. Somewhere between there and here, the word replaced "hund" as a word for all dogs, and the word "hound" became a term for a specific breed.)
Unfortunately, this is all about etymology, or about words. Dictionaries are about words, while an encyclopedia is about things, so getting into that level of detail about the words starts getting us way off topic from the actual thing. However, if you'd like to add some alternative names without explaining why they are used, you are welcome to add them to the article. Just be sure to provide a source that also lists those names. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Change "In the Europe the EC..." to "In Europe, the EC..." Javivr (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Electrical Circuit Symbols

Please would someone knowledgeable add the electrical circuit symbols used for light bulbs ? (There are several.) Either at the top, or in their own section. Many thanks ! Darkman101 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That's covered at Electric light#Circuit symbols--Srleffler (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incandescent_light_bulb/Archive_4&oldid=1195820561"