The Centennial Light, a bulb that's reportedly been burning for 113 years
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
> raises questions as to whether it is a miracle of physics, or a sign that new bulbs are weaker. Its longevity still remains a mystery.
It's not mystery at all. All you have to do to make a bulb last forever is derate it. The lower the temperature the longer it lasts, (and the less efficient it is).
At the dull red glow this one is emitting it'll last forever.
> Instead, they began to collectively engage in planned obsolescence. To achieve this the companies agreed to limit the life expectancy of light bulbs at 1,000 hours
I expected better from priceonomics than to repeat urban legends.
You can trade off long life and high efficiency. All that agreement did was decide that 1000 hours was a good trade off point, and standardize the luminous efficiency of incandescent bulbs so all incandescent bulbs of a specified wattage will be approximately the same brightness.
You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Light_... - it even mentions this very bulb.
Note that lifetime goes by the power of 16!!! so it's very easy to derate a bulb and make it last forever.
"First of all, we understand the correlation between low output and longevity, and acknowledge that the Centennial Light produces a very low output. Even so, out of hundreds of thousands of low wattage bulbs produced from 1880-1910, it's the only bulb of its kind that has burned for 113-years. Just a handful of bulbs on Earth are older than 60. We think that qualifies as mysterious on some level -- even when scientifically dissected.
Secondly, I appreciate you clarifying the complexity of the Phoebus cartel's actions (admittedly, it's a bigger picture than what we presented) -- but there exists compelling evidence that the cartel exercised planned obsolescence (we understand planned obsolescence to be when the "lifespan of a product is rendered artificially short by design"). Pre-1900, bulbs had lifespans of 1,200-2,500 hours; the cartel set bulbs at 1,000 hours -- even when GE (a member of the cartel) had access to modern tungsten filament technology that could've increased the output of bulbs without so aggressively compromising lifespan. While, as you said, the cartel's motivation was to standardize the haphazard market, the byproduct of this was an overly-assertive cap on longevity."
A crude bulb with a thick filament will last longer, as the current per unit area goes down. A thicker filament would of course drastically increase the life.
And reduce the voltage by 10%, an incandescent bulb will last 10x longer. With Tungsten the usual failure mode is excited evaporated material cooling and ending up on the cool bulb wall, this is the "blackening" you see on the bottoms of bulbs.
Tungsten is a pretty amazing material, but will wear down over time.
http://www.hugtherhino.com/2013/04/planned-obsolescence-dark...
The article states that the filament is 8 times thicker -- using 64 times more material -- and only runs at 4 Watts. So to match the standard 100 Watt bulb, you'd need 25 Centennial Lights, for a total of 1600 times more material.
Meanwhile, it's burned for 113 years, about 990 times the standard bulb's 1000 hour lifespan. 990 times better using 1600 times more material; should I be impressed?
Not really. Run a 100 watt lightbulb dimmed down to the brightness of a 1 watt bulb and it will also likely run for 100 years.
As an aside, it's my experience that what kills most LED bulbs is transients that fry their control circuits. Has anyone else noticed this?
Transients certainly are one problem for LEDs if the power filtering is bad, another is (lack of) cooling - while LEDs produce much less heat, they also need to stay much, much cooler: A tungsten filament is fine at 2400 °C, an LED die should not get much hotter than 100 °C, preferably less than that, and most fixtures are not particularly good at getting rid of heat.
The only reason why you can somewhat compare modern incandescent bulbs by power is because the manufacturers have standardized on specific operating temperatures (the "cartel") - however, that only works for a given type of bulb, not between a "normal" one and a halogen one, for example, much less for the centennial light.
Still, all that indeed makes for even less reason to be impressed ...
Also mentioned in the article: "Katz also adds that the bulb’s age could be, in part, contributed to the fact that it hasn’t been turned off and on a whole lot -- a process which is more exhausting on a bulb than letting it run continuously (the filament needs to reheat itself, much like a car’s engine)."
What experts and physicists?
With semiconductors, the rule of thumb is an increase of 10 Kelvin halves the lifetime of the part. Considering this bulb is running several hundred Kelvin below modern bulbs, it isn't surprising it lasts. Run a modern 60W lightbulb at 30Vac and it'll last just as long too, but put out so little light as to be near useless (like this bulb).
Unless I'm forgetting my P-Chem (possible, it wasn't a favorite subject), the 10 kelvin/halving lifetime loosely holds true for most chemical reactions that occur out of extremes -- e.g. that relationship holds true for most reactions that naturally occur on our planet. I still find that to be one of nature's neat factoids.
These books are great.
Refs:
[1] Tony Kordyban. Hot Air Rises and Heat Sinks. New York: ASME Press, 1998. ISBN 0-7918-0074-1
[2] ---. More Hot Air. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2005. ISBN 0-7918-0223-X
I submit Rechtgefühleinsamkeit as a candidate.
The first couple I took apart to determine if the LEDs were the problem (they weren't, the power supplies are the weak link), this one I'm going to send back to Cree to see if they actually honor the 10 year warranty, on my 3 month old bulb.
It burns out roughly every 3 years (26,000 hours, pretty damned good, right.) That bulb is subject to various other environmental factors that will reduce it's lifespan (vibration and high heat.)
I've forgotten my point now, but I think it boils down to, a single factor, such as power cycling, isn't likely going to be the only reason a bulb doesn't last as long. A lot of factors play into it, including both environment and manufacturing.
The idea is: Turn it on, metal expands (thermal expansion) Turn it off, metal contracts
This is the repeatedly applied load, hence eventual material failure.
Also, the hotter you run the bulb, the more tungsten evaporates.