this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
230 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
60 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this one wasn't really that bad, yes they shortened the life span of the bulbs, but incandescent bulbs were a solved problem at that time, and longer lasting bulbs meant that they must produce less light. that bulb that's lasted a 100 years or whatever, is very very dim, and that's why it's still going. also, dimmer (longer lasting) bulbs are less efficient for the amount of light you get, and some of the lightbulb manufacturers were also power companies, which were struggling with energy and so had reason to want more efficient lightbulbs. here's a great video on the topic https://youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY