Jackie Gleason was a national treasure.
Posted on 01/11/2016 10:43:32 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Ever since the EU restricted sales of traditional incandescent light bulbs, homeowners have complained about the shortcomings of their energy-efficient replacements.
The clinical white beam of LEDs and frustrating time-delay of 'green' lighting has left many hankering after the instant, bright warm glow of traditional filament bulbs.
But now scientists in the US believe they have come up with a solution which could see a reprieve for incandescent bulbs.
Researchers at MIT have shown that by surrounding the filament with a special crystal structure in the glass they can bounce back the energy which is usually lost in heat, while still allowing the light through.
They refer to the technique as 'recycling light' because the energy which would usually escape into the air is redirected back to the filament where it can create new light.
"It recycles the energy that would otherwise be wasted," said Professor Marin Soljacic.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Banning certain light bulbs never had anything to do with efficiency and everything to do with government control. One small piece at a time.
And of course, pure bribery. Donors wanted to sell the same number of bulbs that coast 10 times as much. And they pushed the lie that CFLs last ten times as long.
I hope the contractor slapped his kid until the white meat showed.
A big whopper!
Jackie Gleason was a national treasure.
There’s no reason to continue banning incandescent bulbs because the alternatives have become cost competitive. Consumers should be able choose what best fits their application.
Jeb isn’t the brightest bulb in the pack, either. ;-)
Remember all of the new cars that had their lights on in the daytime? The bulb mfgs just wanted to sell twice as many replacement headlights by burning the old ones out twice as fast.
 |
Freedom ≠ Free Stuff☭ |  |
| I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /. | ||
|
|
||
bump to the top
Totally correct!
U R wise :-)
E-Z-Bake-Oven ...lol
My sister had one... we made a tiny cake using the heat from a 100 Watt bulb :-)
An incandescent used in a home that needs heat is 100% efficient already.
That's a fact, Jack ...
Precisely the kind of fact that makes liberals and econazi heads explode. When it is like 10° above zero F, like it is right now here in NY, those bulbs are a godsend. Ironically, when the alternative is a house full of LED lights the poor bastard needs to walk over and jack up the thermostat so that the furnace blasts out more warm air - but NOT to just where the humans live ( like a localized incandescent bulb ), but to all the places that the ductwork supplies. Liberals have once again mucked up science and common sense.
They can never understand how this can be, that an incandescent can be more efficient than an LED. They have no clue that heat is not wasted up here in the higher latitudes ( unless these bulbs are recessed in a ceiling or outside, but in the latter case there are bugs and critters who might disagree ;-) but then again they also don't understand the effect the difference that makes in angle of obliquity for solar panels and duration of daytime length either.
Forget about the basics about efficiency too, like the fact that LED's as implemented are throwing away some energy striking phosphors to create "white" light from blue, but also that they are radically heat-sinked to toss away their own heat from overdriving them to get useful lumen equivalence AND from voltage regulation circuitry and/or resistors to ensure the constant current that diodes require and to prevent thermal runaway failure.
~sigh~ Brain-dead liberals got lost somewhere above at the picture of Dr. J.
P.S. It is true that Pelosi and Reid pushed this crony-capitalist gift to General Electric into law, but it was Bush43 who happily signed away Edison's most famous development. In a twisted way, it was actually a gift to oil companies as well since many homes up this way use fuel oil for furnaces, and the thermostat controls that directly ( something else that liberals can never understand ).
( I originally had a picture of an Erving slam dunk to compliment Moonman62's comment, but it wasn't showing )
This was it ...
LED and CFL bulbs emit radiation, so I for one will welcome efficient incandescents.
I only need light in the winter.
/trolling
All kidding aside, some of the new LEDs are awesome. Technology finally caught up.
I have a hundred lumen per linear foot rope light, 40 foot of it on the ceiling ledge in the bedroom. No more mismatched socks. :-). It is as bright as daylight in there with a very similar color spectrum, and to top it off, just a buck a foot. It was way to dark before. 4000 lumin at the energy cost of less than a 100 watt bulb. (About a watt and a half a foot). None of the nasty cfl flicker either.
True story - Between 15 and 20 years ago I replaced all the lights in my 4 story row house with CFLs as the other ones burned out. The ones I installed have rarely burned out, and I am just replacing the very last of the old ones. There are new CFLs that light quickly and have what they call indoor and outdoor light. They even have some new affordable LED bulbs which I have bought for under $3. Over the years I figure I have saved from $2,000 to $3,000 in electrical costs. Nobody likes the government telling us what to do, but since I did this on my own years ago, I am very happy to have the extra money.
If they were significantly more energy efficient, the liberals would rewrite the law to permit that type. I didn’t see anything about how long they might last. Long life has been a big factor in my liking CFLs.
I’m happy for you, but obviously you don’t get migraines. Lucky you !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
