Modular production. Instead of making something that won't last too long, just make items as good as it can with the current feature. By making these things modular, consumers can upgrade bits and pieces as newer features are added but without the need for replacing the entire product. If we apply this to cars, owners can change out a new engine for a better MPG or powerful engine. Cost wise, it will be more expensive to replace/upgrade everything once than buying a new car, but it is still more value since these modular upgrade cost would be spread out through the lifespan of the car on multiple small purchases rather than as a single expensive purchase.
It's not a 100% perfect solution, not only because the design of said modular product can't be easily "Upgraded" but because any modular product must have a "mainframe" were every piece is attached, and sooner or later that frame will become obsolete, or companies will have to change the mainframe or they will have to develop an system that applies to the old model, inevitably reducing some of the equipments capability. Also whit modular products we suddenly have the issue of the thing just, unscrewing itself after some use, after all the system must have some capability of being disassembled easily or it will take to long to change the pieces and people will just prefer the intact product, and the fact that the system isn't an entire piece crates weak spots, which is a problem after all every equipment is as strong as it's weakest part, these problems are especially problematic in a car, something that you absolutely don't want dismantling wile you are at 100 mph As it's stand modular production is just a way to add variety to a production process that is sometimes too uniform, but who knows. (sorry for any grammar and continuity errors, Non english speaker here)
Maybe we don't need a constant supply of consumer goods to be happy. Maybe people will be better off not having to work pointless jobs for a useless cycle.
Michael - the whole shtick about society being freed from a pointless and endless cycle of the economics of manufacturing goods is that it's either the whole society re-organizes into more sustainable and less short-sided methods of producing goods which will eventually make humans irrelevant to production and manufacturing jobs will cease to exist (which sounds awesome to me) or the whole society doesn't change and quality of production will continue to be sub-par in-order to keep people re-buying non-consumable goods in-order to re-supply and introduce a synthetic incentive for people to buy more of the same to introduce profits to a company which in-turn will have mind-numbing manufacturing jobs for the ultimate sake of keeping (and maybe creating more) jobs just to re-supply this synthesized demand for some non-consumable product which will break, as it is designed to, in a short time after. Which, in turn, will keep this nonsensical cycle going in-order to make and grow a profit. Which will make make life better for around 2-10 individuals (the CEOs and families of theirs) and will make life worse for everybody else, whether it's other humans, other life-forms or the environment. ----- Basically - the fact some dude criticizes something which is rooted in our society while on the other hand needs a job for as long as he can because he's also part of society and doesn't have any choice to opt-out from re-consuming non-consumables and found himself not working in some super fulfilling career he dreamed to have (+isn't a useless career whatsoever) doesn't imply any choice, at-least on some pure idealistic sense, on the matter of what career one ends up in. Where I live, serving in the army for 2-3 years is mandatory by law after finishing highschool and is punishable by imprisonment for the duration of service one is mandated (basically 2-3 years prison) and places like the U.S where there's no coercion to serve there are many benefits for a persons academic future if he chooses to serve before going to academia (that's the main benefit I think of but I know there's tons more perks for serving the military in the U.S like tax benefits, various discounts for goods and services such as mortgage and personal insurance, etc.)
But if we didn't work pointless jobs in a useless cycle, the 1% would have to lift a finger, and since they control the government via handouts, and mass opinion via the media I doubt people will ever really understand upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Share_of_wealth_globally.png
Here is a crazy idea. How about we automated as much as possible of the production and built things to last and be upgraded instead of replaced. Add comprehensive recycling to that and we have done away with most waste, jobs and a good chunk of our green house emissions. Introduce a citizen salary and give people who work a bit more.
Indeed, our system today is broken. Planned obsolescence is not a good thing. Our economy requiers infinite economic growth. Infinite economic growth is not only mathematically unsustainable, but it is ecologically detrimental. While people can debate the theoretical nature of “capitalism” and how it is “supposed” to function, one thing is historically clear. It perpetuates/requires constant growth and consumption. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet, but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”. In order to keep people employed, people must constantly buy and consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility and basic necessity. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources. In a sustainable society, a “steady-state” economy would be in order. This would mean that there is no pressure to consume, as labor is not linked into the feedback loop. While it is very difficult for most people today to imagine a world which does not impose the need for “labor for income”, it needs to be pointed out that the constant requirement for labor is nothing but detrimental in the modern day, especially in light of the growing efficiency of mechanization of labor across developed nations.
zzbullan Try to run a market economy under these circumstances. Here is a hint: It wont work since availability of goods will be near abundance in many cases. (of course that will vary) Now here is where most people would go: "Woah hold on a second!" But the reality of the matter is that automation will get here anyway within the current economic model. Its only a matter of time before we automate more than what the economy can sustain since people will be out of jobs(most western economies can keep from collapsing if we stay above 30% unemployment. But we are on track to well pass that mark within a few decades) So my point is this: We might as well talk about this now and do it right instead of having our markets slowly grind to a half due to lack of purchasing power.
I came in expecting just an interesting video on this special lightbulb and actually got a great conversation about over consumption and thoughtful production. Absolutely loved it!
I think the real problem is that we've gone too far with planned obsolescence. Buying a new phone every year because your "old" one is broken isn't necessary to keep the economy going and is just hurting the environment.
Very true. What we have today is a disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe, than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US, bottled water from Fuji, Japan, while western companies will go to the 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc.. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This is extreme inefficiency and only justifiable within the market system for the sake of “saving money”. In a sustainable society, the focus would be maximum efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor when compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the *best possible goods. In other words, the system is planned to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.
it's not about keepong economy going, it's about making rich and powerfull even richer and them having even more power. and it is caused by our ignorance and greed... why do we keep buying new phones? why do we accept loundry machines failing after three years when they used to last decades when they were made from worse materials? why do we keep pretending we cannot be better than this? annoys me to no end...
I bought a xiaomi note 3 about 5 years ago and the thing refuses to die. My Nokia from twenty years ago still gets use as a dumb phone on weekends when I wanna disconnect. The battery needed replacing but other than that it's still good. If you don't buy apple products, take care of your equipment and turn off "software updates" your phones will last decades. Only thing compelling me to spend more on a new one is features but my octa core note 3 still outperforms anything you could buy for the same price today so I just don't bother.
Oh and if your phone starts being "slow", factory reset that sucker and you should be good. Unless it's an iPhone, those things are engineered to fail because apple's core customers are their shareholders not their customers. To apple, consumers are cattle to be harvested for profits.
This is not planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is planning when to discontinue producing a given model, replacing it by new ones. I'm not sure a lifespan if 1 year is really planned for cell phones either, but if they do have a decreased lifespan that should correlate with cheaper models, meaning that possibly there are models that last longer, at a higher price (and cost of materials/production). It's up to the consumer to make the cost/benefit analysis and chose accordingly. Society should nevertheless regulate it so that industries themselves have to deal with their own trash, returned to them, possibly recycled to whatever degree possible.
even since my oldest dog pass away. she love to lay in the basement. we had a light bulb going for her and now it been 3 years and its still going today for her memories! Love you Tikki
6::49 he refers to the bulb going out with the verb "expire" the same way people afraid to say :die" use "expire" for humans He loves his little bulb so much
Planned obsolescence is one of the plagues of modern day society. Think of all the waste that could have been saved. All of our precious and finite resources just going into a landfill. It's awful. I avoid buying useless or "one time use" items that can't be recycled, or that aren't made to last. It's sometimes unavoidable to have to buy certain items that are meant for easy one-time use, but I always try to keep it to a minimum.
The bulbs needed to be brighter and cheaper. The hundred year bulb is so dim that you can barely see it in the daytime, it is drowned out by the fluorescent light next to it.
This is what people overlook when they praise the quality of the 100 year bulb, it's useless for current day usage. It's does last longer, but that's because it has a thicker filament. A thicker filament requires a higher voltage to burn brighter, but this also increases the wear and thus it will not last as long. So you only choose between a long lasting dim bulb or a short lasting bright bulb and it's price depends on the material used.
yep, you could have a lifetime bulb; but its going to cost you like $20 - $30...and I am not paying that much for a light bulb, no one is. Back then they did because the limit market meant there was a market for premium bulbs (especially as its novelty could be a signifier of wealth and status)
This is insane! We're the only species we know of with this level of awareness of it's own existence and we choose to believe we're just here for jobs & industry???
The reason that bulb hasn’t worn out is actually because it hasn’t been toggled often. Lightbulbs are stressed by being turned on and off, and the estimated lifetime is mostly based on the average amount of toggling someone is likely to do. The Centennial Lightbulb hasn’t been turned off except for a couple of times, and as such is still going. Each time you toggle it, however, you are chancing a failure.
It is true, anybody who says different has never tried it, well I have.. The inrush current is often twice as much as the normal current draw. The bulb has to tolerate a large amount of juice for a short second before it levels out.The filament will degrade do to inrush everytime you turn it on... Unless you have a soft start I promise you the switching bulb will blow faster. This is basic 6th grade stuff fellows...
I think there's more to it than just economics. It should be noted that the Centennial Bulb is also not very bright. You get more light by pushing more current through a thinner wire (see power dissipated by a resistor, P=I*V), and that would cause shorter product life anyway since a thinner wire will just naturally fail more. Planned obsolescence is also something of a cost-saving mechanism for manufacturers. A computer that is built to last fifty years would cost more to make than one that lasts five years, and would certainly be replaced long before it reaches that point just because of increasing technological capability and requirements that it wouldn't meet any more. Designing a larger part or selecting a more expensive material for a mechanical part would increase the average life span of a product, but either would also cost more to make and increasing size obviously affects the overall dimensions of the product. Overall, this just goes to say that planned obsolescence is an incredibly complicated topic. Yes, it can be abused, but it also has legitimate reasons to be designed for.
It would but unlikely. This thing is a single thick carbon fiber which has similar heat resistance to a crucible (used in metal foundry) so the heat stress of it being on will never be enough to burn it out... It is however a very dim light and probably very inefficient as it produces more heat than light... It isn't useful on a modern home. Even if we focused on producing a light bulb without planned obsolecense in mind, we simply wouldn't be able to make one that lasts as long as this one does... Because of brightness requirements...
you can't beat the production cost and environmental friendliness of an incandescent bulb. A little amount of glass, a tungsten wire, a vacuum inside and a metal thread for the lamp, that's it. no expensive plastics or even absolutely toxic mercury metals can be found in there. apart from that the light emission spectrum of an incandescent lamp is good for your person, unlike the blue loaded light of LEDs and fluorescent energy saving lamps. with that said, i use only incandescent lamps.
There was a light bulb story like this one....it told of a light bulb in a New York city area building - it was used to light a doorway exit - doing so for over a 100 years. It did so until the building was... Demolished! 😄
The light bulb has lasted so long because of when it was manufactured. Before the 1920's they seemed to last forever. The light bulb companies weren't making enough money off of them. Because people weren't having to buy replacements, unless they were shattered. So the companies got together and came up with a design that would drastically shorten the life span of the bulbs. Only a few of those original bulbs have survived, as others have been broken and what not over the years.
_-Someday it will expire_ _-Maybe long after all humans are gone_ _-Yeah I mean who knows, it could last another hundred years_ Can't deside whether that is optimistic or pessimistic..
I think part of the Centennial bulb's longevity is the fact that the shock of on/off is a major part of degradation. The other thing is it's an early product, in which it hasn't been fully optimised - the compromise between brightness and life is skewed more in favour of the lifetime. I'm not saying planned obselescence isn't real, but it's not the whole story.
"Planned Obsolescence" is a song from "Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America--Vol. 2: The Middle Years." Things were meant to burn out Things were meant to wear out Things were meant to break down Try and wear a pair out They think they're stocking up When they've got three or four Before they turn around They need a dozen more - Planned obsolescence There is the essence Of the American way of making things Schlocky kind of breaking things Bang, clang, crash, smash Clunk, junk, fizzle Conking out according to some master plan Go try and beat the system if you can - Things were meant to burn out Things were meant to crunch out Things were meant to fall down Try and wear a bunch out You make it seem to be quite sturdy whereupon You take your cue from things That say "made in Taiwan" - Planned obsolescence There is the essence Of the American way of making things Schlocky kind of breaking things Bang, clang, crash, smash Clunk, junk, fizzle Conking out according to some master plan Go try and beat the system if you Try and beat the system if you Try and beat the system if you can
The following factors might increase the service light of an incandescent light bulb. 1. Higher pressure of argon gas to reduce evaporation of the filament 2. Thicker and longer filament operating at less power 3. Fewer off-on power cycles, less inrush current time, and less thermal cycling
Operating it with DC. If you operate it with American AC it may cause a 120 Hz thermal flicker. Operating it with flicker-free DC, which can't be rectified AC, can only be original DC or rectified 3-phase AC, may reduce thermal flicker and increase lifespan. Just an idea.
I didn't know about Planned Obsolescence. That's just scary. I get how it's part of the economy, but basically great quality just means you get the normal product that hasn't been tampered with?
Check out "The Lightbulb Conspiracy - Planned Obsolescence" documentary. It's actually on all the products these days.. Even in simple things like electric kettles.
Not all companies are making inferior products on purpose. I'd say it's much more common for a company to make a perfectly fine product but release an "update" with only minor improvements to entice you to buy a whole new product instead of just keeping the perfectly fine one.
Not always, there's this thing on some TVs (mine was a samsung) that is called "the radiator" in my language, because it is here to help the heat escape. And the radiator is right next to a component that swells when it overheats. When this component swells, then the TV doesn't work anymore. That piece costs about 4€ and is easily changeable, but paying to repair that TV would cost around 150€. I got my TV repaired at a small electronic shop, the guy who did it explained that story to me and blex my freaking mind. Gave him a good tip though, would have felt weird to pay only 4€ when my other option was to buy a new shitty tv
+ilker yoldas Apple also slows down the speed of their oldest phones through updates. And you have to update your phone if you want to download the latest apps and all that. Luckily I don't want new apps, suck it apple
Yes, it is a 60W bulb running only at 4W therefore lasting forever but being 10+ times more inefficient than an already inefficient standard incandescent light bulb
@@Phoenix88. Can't make a 60W bulb run at 4 watts. Must lower the voltage. Originally this would have been DC current which may have helped the filament last longer. Is the bulb now on a lower-voltage DC uninterruptible power supply? (If a power outage, it may noturn on.)
@@robertgiftThe bulb is now on a 120v AC uninterruptible power supply. The bulb was originally 60w but something (a defect) caused an increased resistance in the filament and now draws only 4W at full 120v. According to centennialbulb.org, it makes 0.17 lumen at 1452K instead of the original 210 lumen at 2116K
That bulb is long lived because it has been left on, and was made for longevity rather than lumen output. When I was a kid we lived in a 3 story home built in 1901 whose 3rd story was incomplete. Up there was a similar bulb (with the tip ) and with a small piece of paper inside the filament glass holder with patent numbers on it. The latest date for a patent # was 1917 so it was almost that old, perhaps. It took several seconds to reach full brightness, like early CFL lamps did, and for the same reason, to prevent early burnout. I was never very bright, though it did the job at night. That consortium that sought to limit bulb life intentionally did have a good sales pitch. Their bulbs burned brighter, were whiter and used less electricity which people found appealing. That they didn't last as long was good for business of course, but the other factors were popular as fewer bulbs did the same work. the price came down too. The vacuum cleaner manufacturers followed that idea, with a little twist to aid the utilities. I learned early on that the secret of selling vacuum cleaners was to tell people how many amps it used. People think more amps is better and to some extent that can be true. The motor will work harder, picking up more dirt, but the motor that does that has less copper in its windings. It gets hotter and burns out quicker too. the savings in copper is good for the manufacturers bottom line and if it lasts well enough past the warrantee, the customer is happy. One area where incandescent lamp buyers were warned of the short life those lamps could be designed to have was the photo-flood lamps used before flash lamps became cheap enough for ordinary people, rather than professionals. Those lamps were designed for only six hours of life. They made up for that short life by being so high in color temperature that color film could be used when it became available. As those of us who remember film will tell you, regular light bulbs needed special film, and were still very poorly lit.
It's not rocket science. You want a bulb that lasts? Use a 230 volt EU style Incandescent light bulb in your 120 volt US home. Expect 1/3 the light and half the power consumption. If you can still find those things over there.
Better yet. Underdrive LEDs. Use more lights and dim them. They last a lot longer and use less power for the light you get. Incandescent bulbs get more efficient the harder you push them. LEDs are the opposite.
Woah... This video ended being way more interesting than I thought it would be! Perhaps you should have pointed it was about planned obsolescence in the title.
Keep in mind the efficiency, having better lument per watt on an incandescent light requires shifting the spectrum away from the infra reds by increasing the temperature of the filament, which reduces the life span. So that's why the longest lasting lamps are also the dimmest, and the most luminous lamps don't last very long (watt per watt).
Great video guys! I'm glad my Patreon dollars allow the crew to travel back in time to get all that great scientist footage. I'm betting that live stream camera dies before the bulb does.
What if the power goes out, do they have backup generators or something because i'm pretty sure they take some time to kick in after a power outage occurs.
The shortened life of incandescent bulbs isn't necessarily a bad thing for a customer. The main reason they failed was heat, but in general the higher the heat the more efficient the bulb. From a financial and environmental point of view over time there is a break even point where the higher energy efficiency pays for the shorter bulb life. There were "long life" incandescent bulbs on the market, but now they would be illegal to market as they aren't efficient enough to pass energy standards. Basically, it isn't a coincidence that the centennial bulb puts out such a dim red light. It's basically designed for a higher voltage that it is receiving, which has extended the lifespan, but the amount of electricity needed to keep it running costs more than replacing cheaper bulbs. Not that I recommend upping the power on this bulb: the historical value is worth the pittance of electricity I assume it sucks down.
Isn't the George Foreman Grill an example of a "modern" product that has traditionally seen very few of them needing to be replaced and their product ran into whatever resulted from that?
I'm pretty sure the reason most light bulbs burn out is because of the surge in current when turned on or off, so a big part of the reason that bulb has lasted so well is because there's a constant current and no great strain on the filament when current starts and stops flowing through it. Not necisarily that everything was made better in the old days...
Planned obsolescence is bad. 1 Increases the Cost of Living for most people 2 Creates pollution (from refining, manufacturing, transport etc.) 3 Creates waste (plastic, heavy metals etc.) 4 Uses up natural resources 5 "Creating jobs" is a poor argument as most of the profit goes to company owners and share holders
Today's obsolescence is due to bad *software*. Almost all modern apps are still just displaying pictures, text and videos. Even a computer from 2002 can handle that. It's just that today's apps are built so inefficiently that they can only run on huge RAM and fast CPUs.
When it comes to computers, planed obsolescence is INSANE. Graphic card goes out - takes processor or even mother board along with it. Motherboard goes out - takes processor or graphic card or both with it. Power supply unit goes out - high chance of kissing your processor, motherboard and graphic card goodbye. A single component in your modern expensive monitor goes out - broken FOREVER. Printers - OOF! These damn things literally attempt to SMASH themselves! (Looking at you, Epson!)
It would be interesting to know how much power the lamp consumes. Also is it overvolted. A 240 volt lamp will last a long time if only supplied with 110 volts.
Lead free solder is an example of forced obsolesence as the bond will break down causing a disconnection of a component. As manufacturers dont make spares or provide schematics this is proprietary for profit inferior product obsolesence
In Russia its common to have lightbulbs last that long... because they never believe in planned obsolescence . Their is a great documentary called panned obsolescence you can watch it here on youtube and it goes into great detail of this videos theme
The lightbulb cartel was broken up decades ago though. The reason we all don't have light bulbs that last 1,000,000 hours is they're less efficient and much less bright.
Incandescent bulbs all use a tungsten filament. A hotter filament is more efficient but burns up more quickly. It is very simple to make a bulb last forever: use a longer and thinner filament, which does not get as hot, and glows more red than white. A bulb will also last forever if you simply put it on a dimmer and dial it way down. But there is an unintended consequence. A standard 100 watt bulb costs 50 cents, lasts 1500 hours, and uses $18 in electricity over that time (at 12 cents per kWh). The new everlasting bulb will use about 3 times as much electricity over its first 1500 hours, costing an extra $36 to save a half dollar. And another $36 for the next 1500 hours. This is about $200 per year more than the standard bulb which is designed to burn out quickly and save money. The money saved represents a large quantity of coal or natural gas that would be burned to save a few little bulbs.
Great video! I would want to ensure there was less junk in the world but it really is hard to give a solution for the economic side of it! Hopefully someone can find a solution someday.
Planned obsolescence is a byproduct of proper engineering. I’m an ME, and in school we are taught to make things last a given or greater amount of time. It's called factor of safety or Nf, life cycles. So, inherently we need a product to be safe and last a given amount of time. granted, purposefully shortening somethings life is unethical but making something to last safely a certain amount of time is the other side of that same coin.
I'm not arguing against the existence of planned obsolescence, but I have a couple of questions. What is the wattage of the lightbulb? It seems to me that there might be an inverse relationship to power and lifetime. And also, what is the correlation between the number of times a light bulb is turned on and off to its lifetime? does the temperature change not put strain on the filament and cause the lifetime to decrease, allowing a single bulb to stay on a long time provided it isn't turned off and on once or more a day?
I can't answer most of your questions, but I do know turning lights on and off can have an effect, but it depends on a material. Incandescents are the most susceptible, since when you turn them on, full voltage is put through the filament. CFLs are less so because they have a startup sequence that increases voltage gradually. However, this startup sequence also drains more power in the beginning, so if you just turn it on and off, it will consume way more power than the "inefficient" incandescent bulbs they were designed to replace! Fortunately, LEDs are not harmed at all by constant on/off (no filament), and they have tremendously low energy consumption. Definitely the best option!
You know the relevant question is if we have lightbulbs that are reasonably bright that dont die after a short time / a few switches. That lamp is a curiosity, though only for being a little piece of history and not for burning long.
Yes Alex, I'll take Common Misconceptions for 500... "A man's son breaking his neighbors window causes the community to think that the boy is helping the economy rather than causing harm. This scenario gives the name to this fallacy." Answer: The Broken Window Fallacy This applies to planned obsolescence. The reason planned obsolescence is nothing more than simple waste is due to opportunity cost. The effort and resources used to replace all those burned-out light bulbs could go towards, for example, putting windows on a new building or constructing a new telescope. The new building or telescope would generate new value which did not previously exist. The value of the bulb is lost when it burns out because it changes from a useful source of illumination into a scrap piece of glass and metal thus decreasing the amount of value in the economy.
My nightstand light bulb has been burning for a little over 27 years (Turned on every night, and off during day time) and I thought that it's a really long time already apparently there are bulbs that lasts 100+ years :o
Last bulbs I bought (before firmly switching to LED's from Philips) were made by Sylvania.First one burned after 5 days.Whemn I tried to remove it from the socket the glass part detached from the metal leaving the screww inside.Those were made that same year by the way! Personally I think that's a true testament to tech globalization, but you figure it out!
I still got a few old Philips light bulbs from my dad when he died, they could burn on for ever and ever, they never burn out but they eat a lot of energy though, I am very careful with those light bulbs once broke you can't get a new one, they are not made anymore.
Sell subscriptions to things. So people pay companies a monthly fee for their lightbulb. This would keep the economy strong, and also provide incentive to be more efficient in production and minimise waste, since the cost of replacing expired lightbulbs falls to the manufacturer. This would apply to anything, not just light bulbs.
Do people really still point "comments down there" when these days more than 50% of UA-cam viewers don't even use the website anymore. For me, comments are on the right.
Modular production. Instead of making something that won't last too long, just make items as good as it can with the current feature. By making these things modular, consumers can upgrade bits and pieces as newer features are added but without the need for replacing the entire product.
If we apply this to cars, owners can change out a new engine for a better MPG or powerful engine. Cost wise, it will be more expensive to replace/upgrade everything once than buying a new car, but it is still more value since these modular upgrade cost would be spread out through the lifespan of the car on multiple small purchases rather than as a single expensive purchase.
I like it.
#PCMasterRace
It's not a 100% perfect solution, not only because the design of said modular product can't be easily "Upgraded" but because any modular product must have a "mainframe" were every piece is attached, and sooner or later that frame will become obsolete, or companies will have to change the mainframe or they will have to develop an system that applies to the old model, inevitably reducing some of the equipments capability.
Also whit modular products we suddenly have the issue of the thing just, unscrewing itself after some use, after all the system must have some capability of being disassembled easily or it will take to long to change the pieces and people will just prefer the intact product, and the fact that the system isn't an entire piece crates weak spots, which is a problem after all every equipment is as strong as it's weakest part, these problems are especially problematic in a car, something that you absolutely don't want dismantling wile you are at 100 mph
As it's stand modular production is just a way to add variety to a production process that is sometimes too uniform, but who knows.
(sorry for any grammar and continuity errors, Non english speaker here)
Also this system would be terribly unfriendly to the general "i just want to buy and use this" type of costumer.
With electric cars, it would be easier since it have less moving part.
Maybe we don't need a constant supply of consumer goods to be happy. Maybe people will be better off not having to work pointless jobs for a useless cycle.
Very well said.
Michael - the whole shtick about society being freed from a pointless and endless cycle of the economics of manufacturing goods is that it's either the whole society re-organizes into more sustainable and less short-sided methods of producing goods which will eventually make humans irrelevant to production and manufacturing jobs will cease to exist (which sounds awesome to me) or the whole society doesn't change and quality of production will continue to be sub-par in-order to keep people re-buying non-consumable goods in-order to re-supply and introduce a synthetic incentive for people to buy more of the same to introduce profits to a company which in-turn will have mind-numbing manufacturing jobs for the ultimate sake of keeping (and maybe creating more) jobs just to re-supply this synthesized demand for some non-consumable product which will break, as it is designed to, in a short time after. Which, in turn, will keep this nonsensical cycle going in-order to make and grow a profit. Which will make make life better for around 2-10 individuals (the CEOs and families of theirs) and will make life worse for everybody else, whether it's other humans, other life-forms or the environment.
-----
Basically - the fact some dude criticizes something which is rooted in our society while on the other hand needs a job for as long as he can because he's also part of society and doesn't have any choice to opt-out from re-consuming non-consumables and found himself not working in some super fulfilling career he dreamed to have (+isn't a useless career whatsoever) doesn't imply any choice, at-least on some pure idealistic sense, on the matter of what career one ends up in. Where I live, serving in the army for 2-3 years is mandatory by law after finishing highschool and is punishable by imprisonment for the duration of service one is mandated (basically 2-3 years prison) and places like the U.S where there's no coercion to serve there are many benefits for a persons academic future if he chooses to serve before going to academia (that's the main benefit I think of but I know there's tons more perks for serving the military in the U.S like tax benefits, various discounts for goods and services such as mortgage and personal insurance, etc.)
Quentin Lightner
Maybe people will be better off not having capitalism!
But if we didn't work pointless jobs in a useless cycle, the 1% would have to lift a finger, and since they control the government via handouts, and mass opinion via the media I doubt people will ever really understand upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Share_of_wealth_globally.png
AI!
7:07 Anyone else reads the word "ON" in that light bulb?
Yeah! Nice catch. The fire chief pointed that out to us!
The pessimist is me sees no. This is still the kind of thing that gives me hope for American manufacturing getting its good stuff together.
We can use the light bulb for outdated psychoanalysis! :D
They using cheat codes
it also reads "NO" if you look at it from another angle
Here is a crazy idea. How about we automated as much as possible of the production and built things to last and be upgraded instead of replaced.
Add comprehensive recycling to that and we have done away with most waste, jobs and a good chunk of our green house emissions.
Introduce a citizen salary and give people who work a bit more.
Indeed, our system today is broken. Planned obsolescence is not a good thing. Our economy requiers infinite economic growth.
Infinite economic growth is not only mathematically unsustainable, but it is ecologically detrimental.
While people can debate the theoretical nature of “capitalism” and how it is “supposed” to function,
one thing is historically clear. It perpetuates/requires constant growth and consumption.
The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet, but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”.
In order to keep people employed, people must constantly buy and consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility and basic necessity.
This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.
In a sustainable society, a “steady-state” economy would be in order. This would mean that there is no pressure to consume, as labor is not linked into the feedback loop.
While it is very difficult for most people today to imagine a world which does not impose the need for “labor for income”, it needs to be pointed out that the constant requirement for labor is nothing but detrimental in the modern day,
especially in light of the growing efficiency of mechanization of labor across developed nations.
TVP
over dox
Right there with you :)
But you put it in more words than I felt like at the time :D
ok...how does this effect employees and in turn consumers?
zzbullan
Try to run a market economy under these circumstances.
Here is a hint: It wont work since availability of goods will be near abundance in many cases.
(of course that will vary)
Now here is where most people would go: "Woah hold on a second!"
But the reality of the matter is that automation will get here anyway within the current economic model. Its only a matter of time before we automate more than what the economy can sustain since people will be out of jobs(most western economies can keep from collapsing if we stay above 30% unemployment. But we are on track to well pass that mark within a few decades)
So my point is this: We might as well talk about this now and do it right instead of having our markets slowly grind to a half due to lack of purchasing power.
I came in expecting just an interesting video on this special lightbulb and actually got a great conversation about over consumption and thoughtful production. Absolutely loved it!
I think the real problem is that we've gone too far with planned obsolescence. Buying a new phone every year because your "old" one is broken isn't necessary to keep the economy going and is just hurting the environment.
Very true. What we have today is a disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy.
In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe, than to produce locally.
We import bananas from Ecuador to the US, bottled water from Fuji, Japan, while western companies will go to the 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc..
Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs.
This is extreme inefficiency and only justifiable within the market system for the sake of “saving money”.
In a sustainable society, the focus would be maximum efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor when compared to methods today.
Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the *best possible goods.
In other words, the system is planned to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.
it's not about keepong economy going, it's about making rich and powerfull even richer and them having even more power. and it is caused by our ignorance and greed... why do we keep buying new phones? why do we accept loundry machines failing after three years when they used to last decades when they were made from worse materials? why do we keep pretending we cannot be better than this? annoys me to no end...
I bought a xiaomi note 3 about 5 years ago and the thing refuses to die. My Nokia from twenty years ago still gets use as a dumb phone on weekends when I wanna disconnect. The battery needed replacing but other than that it's still good.
If you don't buy apple products, take care of your equipment and turn off "software updates" your phones will last decades.
Only thing compelling me to spend more on a new one is features but my octa core note 3 still outperforms anything you could buy for the same price today so I just don't bother.
Oh and if your phone starts being "slow", factory reset that sucker and you should be good. Unless it's an iPhone, those things are engineered to fail because apple's core customers are their shareholders not their customers. To apple, consumers are cattle to be harvested for profits.
This is not planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is planning when to discontinue producing a given model, replacing it by new ones. I'm not sure a lifespan if 1 year is really planned for cell phones either, but if they do have a decreased lifespan that should correlate with cheaper models, meaning that possibly there are models that last longer, at a higher price (and cost of materials/production). It's up to the consumer to make the cost/benefit analysis and chose accordingly. Society should nevertheless regulate it so that industries themselves have to deal with their own trash, returned to them, possibly recycled to whatever degree possible.
Planned obsolesence + mandatory recycling (i.e. manufacturer has to take the obsolete product back).
And pay for it!
Favorite line:
"If you sell a light bulb that lasts forever, eventually you'll go out of business"
But not the light bulb
Something about this light bulb is really inspiring and interesting, I don't know why but it definetly is!
Corona
even since my oldest dog pass away. she love to lay in the basement. we had a light bulb going for her and now it been 3 years and its still going today for her memories! Love you Tikki
6::49 he refers to the bulb going out with the verb "expire" the same way people afraid to say :die" use "expire" for humans
He loves his little bulb so much
No wonder they banned them, it lasts more than a lifetime.
Planned obsolescence is one of the plagues of modern day society. Think of all the waste that could have been saved. All of our precious and finite resources just going into a landfill. It's awful. I avoid buying useless or "one time use" items that can't be recycled, or that aren't made to last. It's sometimes unavoidable to have to buy certain items that are meant for easy one-time use, but I always try to keep it to a minimum.
I recently pick up a lighter with an led and used the led to make a torch for myself. It's my way tp protect the environment.
Gives credence to the phrase "they don't make 'em like they used to"
I recall 50 years ago reading about this in guiness book of records. And it's Still going! !
The bulbs needed to be brighter and cheaper. The hundred year bulb is so dim that you can barely see it in the daytime, it is drowned out by the fluorescent light next to it.
This is what people overlook when they praise the quality of the 100 year bulb, it's useless for current day usage. It's does last longer, but that's because it has a thicker filament.
A thicker filament requires a higher voltage to burn brighter, but this also increases the wear and thus it will not last as long.
So you only choose between a long lasting dim bulb or a short lasting bright bulb and it's price depends on the material used.
Albert Vds That bulb was basically barely bright enough for the firefighters to light their kerosene lamps...
yep, you could have a lifetime bulb; but its going to cost you like $20 - $30...and I am not paying that much for a light bulb, no one is. Back then they did because the limit market meant there was a market for premium bulbs (especially as its novelty could be a signifier of wealth and status)
Or in this case because it was donated to them
It's all about the filament, and how much power you put through it!
10:00 IS IT JUST ME OR IS THE MUSIC GETTING LOUDER
It certainly is, and it stressed me out a bit, to be honest.
it's called a crescendo.
This is insane! We're the only species we know of with this level of awareness of it's own existence and we choose to believe we're just here for jobs & industry???
When in the event this bulb dies the San Jose fire department should have a special memorial service
The reason that bulb hasn’t worn out is actually because it hasn’t been toggled often. Lightbulbs are stressed by being turned on and off, and the estimated lifetime is mostly based on the average amount of toggling someone is likely to do. The Centennial Lightbulb hasn’t been turned off except for a couple of times, and as such is still going. Each time you toggle it, however, you are chancing a failure.
wrong it uses black magic
It is true, anybody who says different has never tried it, well I have.. The inrush current is often twice as much as the normal current draw. The bulb has to tolerate a large amount of juice for a short second before it levels out.The filament will degrade do to inrush everytime you turn it on... Unless you have a soft start I promise you the switching bulb will blow faster. This is basic 6th grade stuff fellows...
I haven't looked it up but it is probably running a very heavy duty filament producing very little light.
It puts out the light of a night light, I would throw it away
@@wegder Yeah.. Let's throw away a rare 100 year old bulb...
Planned Obsolescence?!?! - Whew, this episode got deep, fast.
I think there's more to it than just economics. It should be noted that the Centennial Bulb is also not very bright. You get more light by pushing more current through a thinner wire (see power dissipated by a resistor, P=I*V), and that would cause shorter product life anyway since a thinner wire will just naturally fail more.
Planned obsolescence is also something of a cost-saving mechanism for manufacturers. A computer that is built to last fifty years would cost more to make than one that lasts five years, and would certainly be replaced long before it reaches that point just because of increasing technological capability and requirements that it wouldn't meet any more. Designing a larger part or selecting a more expensive material for a mechanical part would increase the average life span of a product, but either would also cost more to make and increasing size obviously affects the overall dimensions of the product.
Overall, this just goes to say that planned obsolescence is an incredibly complicated topic. Yes, it can be abused, but it also has legitimate reasons to be designed for.
6:31 the answer is simple. Because they light not be as steong but they shine way broghter for half or the third of the power it consume.
Wouldn't be ironic/funny if the lightbulb burnt out while making this video..
lol
no it be sad day.
I was expecting it anytime
It would but unlikely. This thing is a single thick carbon fiber which has similar heat resistance to a crucible (used in metal foundry) so the heat stress of it being on will never be enough to burn it out... It is however a very dim light and probably very inefficient as it produces more heat than light... It isn't useful on a modern home. Even if we focused on producing a light bulb without planned obsolecense in mind, we simply wouldn't be able to make one that lasts as long as this one does... Because of brightness requirements...
Still burning!
you can't beat the production cost and environmental friendliness of an incandescent bulb. A little amount of glass, a tungsten wire, a vacuum inside and a metal thread for the lamp, that's it. no expensive plastics or even absolutely toxic mercury metals can be found in there. apart from that the light emission spectrum of an incandescent lamp is good for your person, unlike the blue loaded light of LEDs and fluorescent energy saving lamps. with that said, i use only incandescent lamps.
There was a light bulb story like this one....it told of a light bulb in a New York city area building - it was used to light a doorway exit - doing so for over a 100 years. It did so until the building was...
Demolished! 😄
We buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like.
1st time watcher, good vid!
The light bulb has lasted so long because of when it was manufactured. Before the 1920's they seemed to last forever. The light bulb companies weren't making enough money off of them. Because people weren't having to buy replacements, unless they were shattered. So the companies got together and came up with a design that would drastically shorten the life span of the bulbs. Only a few of those original bulbs have survived, as others have been broken and what not over the years.
_-Someday it will expire_
_-Maybe long after all humans are gone_
_-Yeah I mean who knows, it could last another hundred years_
Can't deside whether that is optimistic or pessimistic..
what about the many power outages in CA??? Wasn't the light bulb turned off during that times?
That's what ive been thinking!
Have you guys never heard of generators??
that filament is quite thick so it would be much harder for it to burn out, and also the reason why it's so dim.
I think part of the Centennial bulb's longevity is the fact that the shock of on/off is a major part of degradation. The other thing is it's an early product, in which it hasn't been fully optimised - the compromise between brightness and life is skewed more in favour of the lifetime. I'm not saying planned obselescence isn't real, but it's not the whole story.
"Planned Obsolescence" is a song from "Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America--Vol. 2: The Middle Years."
Things were meant to burn out
Things were meant to wear out
Things were meant to break down
Try and wear a pair out
They think they're stocking up
When they've got three or four
Before they turn around
They need a dozen more
-
Planned obsolescence
There is the essence
Of the American way of making things
Schlocky kind of breaking things
Bang, clang, crash, smash
Clunk, junk, fizzle
Conking out according to some master plan
Go try and beat the system if you can
-
Things were meant to burn out
Things were meant to crunch out
Things were meant to fall down
Try and wear a bunch out
You make it seem to be quite sturdy whereupon
You take your cue from things
That say "made in Taiwan"
-
Planned obsolescence
There is the essence
Of the American way of making things
Schlocky kind of breaking things
Bang, clang, crash, smash
Clunk, junk, fizzle
Conking out according to some master plan
Go try and beat the system if you
Try and beat the system if you
Try and beat the system if you can
The voltage is reduced on that bulb.
that is why it is dim and vastly extends the life of the bulb.
The following factors might increase the service light of an incandescent light bulb.
1. Higher pressure of argon gas to reduce evaporation of the filament
2. Thicker and longer filament operating at less power
3. Fewer off-on power cycles, less inrush current time, and less thermal cycling
Operating it with DC.
If you operate it with American AC it may cause a 120 Hz thermal flicker. Operating it with flicker-free DC, which can't be rectified AC, can only be original DC or rectified 3-phase AC, may reduce thermal flicker and increase lifespan. Just an idea.
I didn't know about Planned Obsolescence. That's just scary. I get how it's part of the economy, but basically great quality just means you get the normal product that hasn't been tampered with?
Check out "The Lightbulb Conspiracy - Planned Obsolescence" documentary.
It's actually on all the products these days.. Even in simple things like electric kettles.
Not all companies are making inferior products on purpose. I'd say it's much more common for a company to make a perfectly fine product but release an "update" with only minor improvements to entice you to buy a whole new product instead of just keeping the perfectly fine one.
Not always, there's this thing on some TVs (mine was a samsung) that is called "the radiator" in my language, because it is here to help the heat escape. And the radiator is right next to a component that swells when it overheats. When this component swells, then the TV doesn't work anymore.
That piece costs about 4€ and is easily changeable, but paying to repair that TV would cost around 150€.
I got my TV repaired at a small electronic shop, the guy who did it explained that story to me and blex my freaking mind.
Gave him a good tip though, would have felt weird to pay only 4€ when my other option was to buy a new shitty tv
***** Oh, you mean Apple? Yeah :)
+ilker yoldas Apple also slows down the speed of their oldest phones through updates.
And you have to update your phone if you want to download the latest apps and all that.
Luckily I don't want new apps, suck it apple
We need that company to open there factory again and working again .
So we all should learn how to build our own light bulbs 😁😁😁
Is this on a slightly lower voltage? Or a higher voltage bulb on 117V.?
Such can greatly extend filament life.
But can it extend it for a century?
Yes, it is a 60W bulb running only at 4W therefore lasting forever but being 10+ times more inefficient than an already inefficient standard incandescent light bulb
@@Meccarox Yes, for millennia even
@@Phoenix88. Can't make a 60W bulb run at 4 watts. Must lower the voltage. Originally this would have been DC current which may have helped the filament last longer.
Is the bulb now on a lower-voltage DC uninterruptible power supply? (If a power outage, it may noturn on.)
@@robertgiftThe bulb is now on a 120v AC uninterruptible power supply. The bulb was originally 60w but something (a defect) caused an increased resistance in the filament and now draws only 4W at full 120v. According to centennialbulb.org, it makes 0.17 lumen at 1452K instead of the original 210 lumen at 2116K
That bulb is long lived because it has been left on, and was made for longevity rather than lumen output. When I was a kid we lived in a 3 story home built in 1901 whose 3rd story was incomplete. Up there was a similar bulb (with the tip ) and with a small piece of paper inside the filament glass holder with patent numbers on it. The latest date for a patent # was 1917 so it was almost that old, perhaps. It took several seconds to reach full brightness, like early CFL lamps did, and for the same reason, to prevent early burnout. I was never very bright, though it did the job at night.
That consortium that sought to limit bulb life intentionally did have a good sales pitch. Their bulbs burned brighter, were whiter and used less electricity which people found appealing. That they didn't last as long was good for business of course, but the other factors were popular as fewer bulbs did the same work. the price came down too.
The vacuum cleaner manufacturers followed that idea, with a little twist to aid the utilities. I learned early on that the secret of selling vacuum cleaners was to tell people how many amps it used. People think more amps is better and to some extent that can be true. The motor will work harder, picking up more dirt, but the motor that does that has less copper in its windings. It gets hotter and burns out quicker too. the savings in copper is good for the manufacturers bottom line and if it lasts well enough past the warrantee, the customer is happy.
One area where incandescent lamp buyers were warned of the short life those lamps could be designed to have was the photo-flood lamps used before flash lamps became cheap enough for ordinary people, rather than professionals. Those lamps were designed for only six hours of life. They made up for that short life by being so high in color temperature that color film could be used when it became available. As those of us who remember film will tell you, regular light bulbs needed special film, and were still very poorly lit.
It's not rocket science. You want a bulb that lasts? Use a 230 volt EU style Incandescent light bulb in your 120 volt US home. Expect 1/3 the light and half the power consumption. If you can still find those things over there.
Better yet. Underdrive LEDs. Use more lights and dim them. They last a lot longer and use less power for the light you get. Incandescent bulbs get more efficient the harder you push them. LEDs are the opposite.
Woah... This video ended being way more interesting than I thought it would be! Perhaps you should have pointed it was about planned obsolescence in the title.
With having a 24x7 live stream, it means that one day we will have footage of the bulb burning out.
Most likely it will end "not with a bang but a whimper". :)
+scozio Or the camera will die first.
most bulbs die when turning on... most likely the bulb will die after turning back on after a power outage and the camera will not be on to see it.
Keep in mind the efficiency, having better lument per watt on an incandescent light requires shifting the spectrum away from the infra reds by increasing the temperature of the filament, which reduces the life span. So that's why the longest lasting lamps are also the dimmest, and the most luminous lamps don't last very long (watt per watt).
1. energy vs lumens output. 2. materials. 3. cost? If this is economically and environmentally efficient we've been screwed.
Great video guys! I'm glad my Patreon dollars allow the crew to travel back in time to get all that great scientist footage.
I'm betting that live stream camera dies before the bulb does.
Pleasant surprise to hear Rob Scallon - Rain
What if the power goes out, do they have backup generators or something because i'm pretty sure they take some time to kick in after a power outage occurs.
The shortened life of incandescent bulbs isn't necessarily a bad thing for a customer. The main reason they failed was heat, but in general the higher the heat the more efficient the bulb. From a financial and environmental point of view over time there is a break even point where the higher energy efficiency pays for the shorter bulb life. There were "long life" incandescent bulbs on the market, but now they would be illegal to market as they aren't efficient enough to pass energy standards.
Basically, it isn't a coincidence that the centennial bulb puts out such a dim red light. It's basically designed for a higher voltage that it is receiving, which has extended the lifespan, but the amount of electricity needed to keep it running costs more than replacing cheaper bulbs. Not that I recommend upping the power on this bulb: the historical value is worth the pittance of electricity I assume it sucks down.
Do they have a generator backup for the bulb when power goes out?
Isn't the George Foreman Grill an example of a "modern" product that has traditionally seen very few of them needing to be replaced and their product ran into whatever resulted from that?
I'm pretty sure the reason most light bulbs burn out is because of the surge in current when turned on or off, so a big part of the reason that bulb has lasted so well is because there's a constant current and no great strain on the filament when current starts and stops flowing through it. Not necisarily that everything was made better in the old days...
I enjoyed the video, and the idea of planned obsolescence was new a incredibly interesting idea to me
Planned obsolescence is bad.
1 Increases the Cost of Living for most people
2 Creates pollution (from refining, manufacturing, transport etc.)
3 Creates waste (plastic, heavy metals etc.)
4 Uses up natural resources
5 "Creating jobs" is a poor argument as most of the profit goes to company owners and share holders
Make products that will last forever. Create better Products to replace them. That way poor people are sustained and rich people get new toys
Well....is good for capitalism though.
Wonder if they use any special power conditioning to prevent power spikes that may damage the bulb.
Today's obsolescence is due to bad *software*. Almost all modern apps are still just displaying pictures, text and videos. Even a computer from 2002 can handle that. It's just that today's apps are built so inefficiently that they can only run on huge RAM and fast CPUs.
Great video, very deep, it’s not about the light bulb 💡
I was really confused. I'm not used to The Good Stuff being recorded in Craig's room. I thought I was watching a WheezyWaiter video for a moment.
This was a news story in my neighborhood {across the country} right after it turned 100 years old.
What is the filament of the centennial bulb?
THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO EVER LIKE OMG PERIODT
Are there any other light bulbs that have lasted for a really long time?
When it comes to computers, planed obsolescence is INSANE. Graphic card goes out - takes processor or even mother board along with it. Motherboard goes out - takes processor or graphic card or both with it. Power supply unit goes out - high chance of kissing your processor, motherboard and graphic card goodbye. A single component in your modern expensive monitor goes out - broken FOREVER. Printers - OOF! These damn things literally attempt to SMASH themselves! (Looking at you, Epson!)
It would be interesting to know how much power the lamp consumes. Also is it overvolted. A 240 volt lamp will last a long time if only supplied with 110 volts.
this channel is beautiful
Lead free solder is an example of forced obsolesence as the bond will break down causing a disconnection of a component. As manufacturers dont make spares or provide schematics this is proprietary for profit inferior product obsolesence
James Brindle wouldnt you rather say its a case of not poisoning people? (:
Matinator, you could also stop eating your motherboards
Rokas Kasiliauskas but i like chips!
In Russia its common to have lightbulbs last that long... because they never believe in planned obsolescence . Their is a great documentary called panned obsolescence you can watch it here on youtube and it goes into great detail of this videos theme
The lightbulb cartel was broken up decades ago though. The reason we all don't have light bulbs that last 1,000,000 hours is they're less efficient and much less bright.
how long do those new dim and hot decorative incandescents last?
those are comparable to that old one in terms of efficiency I gueess
Incandescent bulbs all use a tungsten filament. A hotter filament is more efficient but burns up more quickly. It is very simple to make a bulb last forever: use a longer and thinner filament, which does not get as hot, and glows more red than white. A bulb will also last forever if you simply put it on a dimmer and dial it way down. But there is an unintended consequence. A standard 100 watt bulb costs 50 cents, lasts 1500 hours, and uses $18 in electricity over that time (at 12 cents per kWh). The new everlasting bulb will use about 3 times as much electricity over its first 1500 hours, costing an extra $36 to save a half dollar. And another $36 for the next 1500 hours. This is about $200 per year more than the standard bulb which is designed to burn out quickly and save money. The money saved represents a large quantity of coal or natural gas that would be burned to save a few little bulbs.
I checked the website. It is still on.
Oh god. Livermore. I think this light bulb is my home town's main claim to fame. That and a lab...but mainly this.
Why is this one only hosted by Craig in his apartment? I thought they had a studio (or is that gone now?).
Jeez!!! It's almost as old as my math teacher!
Great video! I would want to ensure there was less junk in the world but it really is hard to give a solution for the economic side of it! Hopefully someone can find a solution someday.
Planned obsolescence is a byproduct of proper engineering. I’m an ME, and in school we are taught to make things last a given or greater amount of time. It's called factor of safety or Nf, life cycles. So, inherently we need a product to be safe and last a given amount of time. granted, purposefully shortening somethings life is unethical but making something to last safely a certain amount of time is the other side of that same coin.
I have a light bulb that has been on for 2 years and i have never turned it off
What kind of bulb is it?
@@Vinnay94 A halogen-still burning
I'm not arguing against the existence of planned obsolescence, but I have a couple of questions. What is the wattage of the lightbulb? It seems to me that there might be an inverse relationship to power and lifetime. And also, what is the correlation between the number of times a light bulb is turned on and off to its lifetime? does the temperature change not put strain on the filament and cause the lifetime to decrease, allowing a single bulb to stay on a long time provided it isn't turned off and on once or more a day?
I can't answer most of your questions, but I do know turning lights on and off can have an effect, but it depends on a material.
Incandescents are the most susceptible, since when you turn them on, full voltage is put through the filament. CFLs are less so because they have a startup sequence that increases voltage gradually. However, this startup sequence also drains more power in the beginning, so if you just turn it on and off, it will consume way more power than the "inefficient" incandescent bulbs they were designed to replace! Fortunately, LEDs are not harmed at all by constant on/off (no filament), and they have tremendously low energy consumption. Definitely the best option!
Apparently its on a low voltage to make sure it isnt damage in any way. You know, because its valuable and famous now.
I like the song at the end, the beginning always reminds me of the folk song about Jayne in Firefly
4:19 you didn't have to say it like that lol!
What is the music at 2:30? Tx
You know the relevant question is if we have lightbulbs that are reasonably bright that dont die after a short time / a few switches. That lamp is a curiosity, though only for being a little piece of history and not for burning long.
Walk in one day, power surge, and uh... oops.
This bulb has had a bright future
Still no fire extinguisher ?
1:05 prob bc of lower power throughput
Yes Alex, I'll take Common Misconceptions for 500...
"A man's son breaking his neighbors window causes the community to think that the boy is helping the economy rather than causing harm. This scenario gives the name to this fallacy."
Answer: The Broken Window Fallacy
This applies to planned obsolescence. The reason planned obsolescence is nothing more than simple waste is due to opportunity cost. The effort and resources used to replace all those burned-out light bulbs could go towards, for example, putting windows on a new building or constructing a new telescope. The new building or telescope would generate new value which did not previously exist. The value of the bulb is lost when it burns out because it changes from a useful source of illumination into a scrap piece of glass and metal thus decreasing the amount of value in the economy.
i'm surprised the building that houses it is still standing...
My nightstand light bulb has been burning for a little over 27 years (Turned on every night, and off during day time) and I thought that it's a really long time already apparently there are bulbs that lasts 100+ years :o
Last bulbs I bought (before firmly switching to LED's from Philips) were made by Sylvania.First one burned after 5 days.Whemn I tried to remove it from the socket the glass part detached from the metal leaving the screww inside.Those were made that same year by the way! Personally I think that's a true testament to tech globalization, but you figure it out!
I still got a few old Philips light bulbs from my dad when he died, they could burn on for ever and ever, they never burn out but they eat a lot of energy though, I am very careful with those light bulbs once broke you can't get a new one, they are not made anymore.
Sell subscriptions to things. So people pay companies a monthly fee for their lightbulb. This would keep the economy strong, and also provide incentive to be more efficient in production and minimise waste, since the cost of replacing expired lightbulbs falls to the manufacturer. This would apply to anything, not just light bulbs.
pls bring the science topics back:(. the one on gravitational waves was the best so far in your new series.
What happens if the power goes out?
The entire human race operates on obsolescence. Science marches on with every funeral.
"the Chicago Cubs even won the world series during that time, granted the very beginning"
It's all about the money folks. Quality products put companies out of business.
Do people really still point "comments down there" when these days more than 50% of UA-cam viewers don't even use the website anymore. For me, comments are on the right.
Psst. Hey man, wanna shorten your bulbs?