IIRC, this 75W Sylvania incandescent light bulb was in its socket on the wall of our basement room when we moved into the house 13 years ago. I've never replaced it. By contrast the one in my office ceiling needs to be replaced about three or four times per year.
This bulb does not burn for extended hours, but because of traffic in the room it is turned on and off 4-5 times per day, and my understanding is that the major stress on light bulbs is the heating/cooling cycle that occurs with being switched on and off, rather than the duration of being on.
When I was at the hardward store a couple weeks ago, I asked one of the proprietors; he said that the bulb is probably an old model built with a thick filament, and that "they don't make them like that any more."
Addendum: see tosommerfugle's comment re the long-term expense of a bulb like this.
Look for rough service or severe duty bulbs. They were not banned.
ReplyDeleteI have noted that incandescent bulbs controlled by rheostat switches last must longer than those using snap switches. However, the cost of the rheostat types tends to cancel any savings.
DeleteI'm not a robot. I'm a doofus
That bulb is doomed to fail any day now.
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of these, in my basement as well, and they have been up for as long as we have owned the house (16 years) and while the others (on the same circuit) fail on a regular basis, these seem to go on forever.
ReplyDeleteI have been told by the manufacturer through email exchange that they are no longer made or available due to the new regs.
Thick filament would mean high power usage for the same amount of light. From an economic and environmental viewpoint, it may be the worst light bulb you've ever had, using many times the purchase price in energy.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like an explanation, but now I'm confused. If this is a 75-watt light bulb, doesn't that mean that it uses 75 watts of power? Maybe it produces less light than a more efficient bulb or one with a thinner filament, but isn't the power usage defined by the wattage?
DeleteCan someone clarify this in language that an English major would understand? :.)
You are right, a 75 watt light bulb is indeed expected to use that amount of power, but I assume that a bulb is chosen for the amount of light needed.
DeleteIf you switched to a 75 watt set of LED lighting, you'd get about 9 times more light for the same amount of power, or you could use an approx. 8 watt LED instead. YMMV, of course, and CFL is inbetween. Assuming a KwH price of 14 cents, 2000 hours of 75 watt would cost you $2100, while a 8 watt LED would use only $224 in power. That's real money, and also a significant amount of CO2 emissions, depending on the power plant.
More efficient bulbs is a real good idea.
(Oops, type, I meant cents, not dollars)
DeleteThat all makes good sense. Thanks for the explanation, tosommerfugle.
DeleteIt is a halogen bulb, and there are still halogen bulbs available. They are more expensive than conventional incandescents. I don't know if the newer ones will last as long as the one pictured, but I have one that is about the same age that still works.
ReplyDeleteFrom my time in broadcasting several years ago .. I had the opportunity (youthful adventure!) to change the lights on the 444ft. tower. We used 620 watt lamps for the top flashing beacon (two simultaneous burning lamps for redundancy), and 111 watt bulbs for the side lights. I asked about the strange power ratings.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the FAA/FCC required the top light to produce the light of a "standard" 500 watt lamp. But a standard lamp would burn out too quickly, especially with the on/off cycling. So the lamp makers designed a lamp with the light output of a 500w standard lamp, but with longer life under on/off cycling. But it burned 620w. It was similar for the side lamps.
That should be several decades ago.
DeleteAnd most of the rules for tower lighting, painting, visibility, etc., seem to have changed since.
this is indeed a halogen bulb. I got a few of these in a promotion partnered thru my electric provider in NYS. they came in a couple wattages and were distributed along with "earthlight" CFL bulbs at the dawn of the availability of consumer marketed energy efficient lighting options in the early 1990s. the earthlight was large and had a plastic shroud over the cfl tubing. it was slow to achieve full brightness and was not a very attractive color temp. the sylvania halogens were of higher wattage than halogens- with weird values. IIRC a 56 w was supposed to be equal to lumen output of a 75w incandescent and the 72 w was to produce the output of a 100 w incandescent. long life due to high quality design and manufacture process as well as the halogen cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp Still, i detect some flicker from mine and relegate it to a small portion fo my basement. for their time a reasonable 1st step. compared to the LEDs hitting market now, not very efficient. certainly long lived if not subjected to mechanical shock.
ReplyDelete