Version: 2008
  • On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10

July 6, 2009 1:31 PM PDT

Incandescent bulbs return to the cutting edge

  • 19 comments
Related Stories

FAQ: New Energy Act gets green light

December 19, 2007
Related Blogs

An LED breakthrough in Korea?


June 19, 2009

Can lasers save the incandescent lightbulb?


June 3, 2009

New energy standards are causing major innovation in incandescent lightbulbs, a family of bulbs that some thought would not survive.
(From The New York Times)

The story "Incandescent bulbs return to the cutting edge" published July 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (19 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Neo Con July 6, 2009 2:54 PM PDT
Thank goodness they mentioned the mercury. No discussion involving CF lightbulbs is complete without mention of the deadly, deadly mercury inside each and every one. No death bulbs will ever enter my house. I'm bothered by the fact that my office has DB's installed.

It's excellent that American innovation has once again overcome government stupidity. I bet private industry even created at least 1 job for every 2.2 jobs destroyed by this idiotic California legislation, just like every hidden tax those morons dream up.
Reply to this comment
by shamanskyh July 6, 2009 3:04 PM PDT
Your statement seems very biased.

Whilst the amount of mercury used in production a CFL bulb is at most 6mg, the average mercury content is 4mg. The total emissions of mercury created by a CFL bulb from electricity consumption over its lifetime is about 2.4mg of mercury. In comparison the emissions from an incandescent light bulb is about 10mg. Therefore overall CFLs result in a reduced amount of mercury emitted over the lifetime of a CFL bulb. The real gain is the reduction of 38kg of Co2 per CFL per year and an overall saving of 14% on your electricity bill.
by jemiller0 July 6, 2009 3:50 PM PDT
Yeah, the Earth is flat too.
by squished July 6, 2009 7:03 PM PDT
The government stupidity you refer to passed a bill that requires these companies to stop producing inefficient and outdated incandescents and instead come up with new innovative incandescent technology to meet those new standards. Sometimes good old capitalism needs a kick in the rear.
by viper396 July 6, 2009 10:02 PM PDT
Oh please, If you're that worried then you should be living in the dark in some cave somewhere. You're probable living in a home with various devices that also contain mercury. The very computer system you're reading this article with most likely contains trace amounts of mercury. Another question is why aren't you also worried about the lithium, cadmium, lead and various other compounds used to make everything from iPods to Microwaves? Or are you really delusional enough to think all modern products are made with recycled materials? ...yeah, maybe the box they came in was recycled.

Paranoia and Stupidity are more deadly then anything.
by scdecade July 7, 2009 4:49 AM PDT
To all you tree-hugging wackos who think mercury is no big deal go read what you're supposed to do if you drop a CF bulb and it happens to break. You have to treat the broken CF bulb like it's toxic waste. It's very very very safe to say CF bulbs are dangerous to have in your house especially if you have children. Mercury can permanently damage your children if they happen to break a bulb and then touch the toxic waste.
by MagiMamoru July 6, 2009 4:17 PM PDT
I tried a Halogena bulb once, the performance overall was great, but the waist heat was horrendous. So much so, I took the thing out in fear of fire and have never looked at them since. I'll take the mercury over a fire hazard any day of the week.
Reply to this comment
by ccooley443 July 6, 2009 4:45 PM PDT
First - learn how to spell 'waste'. Most lamps have a wattage rating, so I'd expect a 100 watt Halogena to not exceed a standard 100 watt bulb in terms of heat / safety.

Second, when it's 20*F outside, heat is a very welcome feature of light bulbs.
I could run a 1200 watt space heater in the dark, or run a few 100 watt light bulbs in my office, and lighten it's load.
by codynews July 6, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
Exactly.

But don't just look at mercury, look at the coal being burned and released into the air to power the 1000000000000000000000 old style bulbs. You think that is fun to breath?
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk July 6, 2009 4:53 PM PDT
...ever try to use a CFL in a dimmer-switch light fixture? How about in a 3-way light fixture? Is there a CFL out there that doesn't generate a 60Hz headache?

(hint: CFL's don't work worth a crap in either fixture, and they aren't exactly gentle on the human iris - hence the headaches in individuals sensitive to such things).

--

OTOH, I rather enjoy not paying out the nose for lighting bills, and lvoe the fact that the last CFL bulb I replaced died off after two years of near-continuous use.

--

Not for or against either type, but rather, I'm saying that there are perfectly normal uses for both types. I'd prefer LED over CFL, though, but that can get a bit pricey...
by grey-devil July 6, 2009 4:46 PM PDT
You seem to have missed providing information on another recent technology that was developed for incandescent light bulbs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529121556.htm

Here's an article that details the original experiment and some of it's other uses:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080201090845.htm

But basically this laser can change the surface properties on a light bulb filament, and by doing this researchers can create a mental that is much more efficient at emitting light. Now imagine if this technology was coupled with high quality gases and special coatings that turn the excess heat into light. You could probably augment the efficiency 100 fold.
Reply to this comment
by squished July 6, 2009 8:33 PM PDT
They did mention it in this article. "Both Cunningham and Deposition Sciences have been looking into the work of Chunlei Guo, an associate professor of optics at Rochester University..."
by Skydancergreg July 6, 2009 5:09 PM PDT
I think LED technology will leapfrog this new incandescent technology to market. LED bulbs that were costing $60 or more a few years ago are down to $10.99 at Costco. It didn't take very long for $20+ CFLs to get to $1. Getting full-spectrum LEDs to $5 or less in 5 years is quite possible, in my opinion. The technology is changing rapidly and with 90% of the bulb market still using old incandescents...volume possibilities are staggering.

See my experiences regarding LED lighting at home and get a link to a recent NY Times article at

http://nedrep.org/node/565
Reply to this comment
by sslPro July 10, 2009 10:38 PM PDT
The bulbs sold at costco are Crap sold as new tech( led technology is not new )they are inferior with regard to
the led chip( low binning low quality)- thermal mgmt poor - optics get a c- or d+ the construct of the wannabes
is like that of a yugo or trabant( really bad cars ) Buy quality or enjoy your decision ( mean"t to say endure it)

Borealis is an outstanding example of a quality product - full line of lumeniares par 20,30,38s Mr16- fluorescent
replacement options ,street lighting decor lighting this exemplifies A great product from the Usa

Costcos lighting is like going to a taco bell expecting fine cuisine you can't get it there !
by k2dave July 6, 2009 5:30 PM PDT
Try this at home, read a few pages with a CF, then with IC, I noticed a huge difference, IC is much easier to read and IMHO see by.

CF is alchemy, a attempt of turning mercury into gold.
Reply to this comment
by tech_crazy July 6, 2009 7:52 PM PDT
What's cutting edge about this? Incandescents woefully lag other light sources. Save for a recent innovation with nano-altered filaments, incadescents largely have done nothing over the years to improve and could go the way of the dinosaur.
Reply to this comment
by viper396 July 6, 2009 10:19 PM PDT
The arrogant smugness in your comment is just misplaced. The light bulb is a product that all of us have used for years without any regard to improvement. You are just as guilty as the rest of us for continuing to use this "dinosaur".

Up until the government mandated change there was no need to improve the incandescent light. The point of the article is now there are changes and improvements being done to the lightbulb and those changes are making them viable again. While you appear to have some exaggerated misconceptions about what constitutes "cutting edge" these improvements are in fact very significant.
by scottthesculptor July 7, 2009 8:53 AM PDT
Halogen lights convert the heat from the incandescent filament into more light.
They've always been more efficient but more costly.
This is just putting infra-red "mirror sunglasses" on the gas capsules.
woo - high tech
Still a 70 watt bulb instead of a 40 watt for about the same light as an incredibly inefficient 100 watt one.
Back in the old days I used nothing but halogen light - it's the best light.
Now I use flourescents overall and a halogen desk lamp for when I need to see detail.
This *is* the 21st century - consume less.
Reply to this comment
by sslPro July 10, 2009 10:49 PM PDT
factually halogen bulbs are inferior to Solid State Lighting/ if your halogen bulb is tilted ex track lighting

expect a 30% reduction in lifespan ( due to the gases ) they can't be phased out soon enough.

Get Leds ( Quality Leds) I use them - last months Comed bill was $31.00 for a family of 4

Really do it soon start reducing consumption; but by 2012 the will be commonplace due to the ban
(19 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (0.22%) 22.75 10,388.90
S&P 500 (0.55%) 6.06 1,105.98
NASDAQ (0.98%) 21.21 2,194.35
CNET TECH (0.59%) 9.39 1,602.07
  Symbol Lookup
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right