shelf bulb life
- Thread starter LIGHTSMAD
- Start date
Turbo Guy
Enlightened
The bulbs filiment(s) are in a sealed glass eclosure. Shellife should be similiar to until the twelth of never. Some tubes that are used in radios,TVs, amplifiers are well over 50 years old and still going strong.
VidPro
Flashlight Enthusiast
you mean Quartz :-)
the only thing i have seen from long age, was the metal connections going into the bulb , oxidation, wonder how far up into the thing oxidation can occur, between the dissimilar materials?
normal unaltered silicon glass is "classified" as a liquid at room temperature , they say windows that are 100 years old will be thicker at the bottom.
i have seen more problems on a PR bulb from age, vacumme gone , than on a halogen?? are PRs glass and not quartz?
but i dont know for sure, i have bulb halogens purchaced more than 10 years ago, to insure a backup and to insure against obselecence, and that is all i have seen, creeping oxidation on the leg things, and i cant be sure of its caused or causes or any possible problems.
there is talk of certian particals able to go through glass, and there is usually a negative pressure internally.
look at tritium vials all over the place they are supposed to be able to cope with sealed pressure for decades, i have seen them hold out for more than 5 years.
we have many many halogen tubes (the long things), and fire them up from time to time over 15+ years and they always work.
what about enviroment issues, say like kitchen greace, smoke, and road film collecting on it. if your storing it are you storing it sealed? because i know finger oils can cause uneven heating (or something) in quartz which pops it. so mabey good storage is better than bad storage?
ahh the projector bulb, that thing must be 25+ years old, quartz , and it is working still, and its a hot muther.
i live down the street from the "worlds longest running bulb", 106 years , hmmm http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm yup still glowing
i think it shouldnt be any problem at all :-) heck even the president gave it recognition, made in the USA
the only thing i have seen from long age, was the metal connections going into the bulb , oxidation, wonder how far up into the thing oxidation can occur, between the dissimilar materials?
normal unaltered silicon glass is "classified" as a liquid at room temperature , they say windows that are 100 years old will be thicker at the bottom.
i have seen more problems on a PR bulb from age, vacumme gone , than on a halogen?? are PRs glass and not quartz?
but i dont know for sure, i have bulb halogens purchaced more than 10 years ago, to insure a backup and to insure against obselecence, and that is all i have seen, creeping oxidation on the leg things, and i cant be sure of its caused or causes or any possible problems.
there is talk of certian particals able to go through glass, and there is usually a negative pressure internally.
look at tritium vials all over the place they are supposed to be able to cope with sealed pressure for decades, i have seen them hold out for more than 5 years.
we have many many halogen tubes (the long things), and fire them up from time to time over 15+ years and they always work.
what about enviroment issues, say like kitchen greace, smoke, and road film collecting on it. if your storing it are you storing it sealed? because i know finger oils can cause uneven heating (or something) in quartz which pops it. so mabey good storage is better than bad storage?
ahh the projector bulb, that thing must be 25+ years old, quartz , and it is working still, and its a hot muther.
i live down the street from the "worlds longest running bulb", 106 years , hmmm http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm yup still glowing
i think it shouldnt be any problem at all :-) heck even the president gave it recognition, made in the USA
Last edited:
DM51
Flashaholic
Posted in the wrong forum. Moving to the Incan section.
american lockpicker
Enlightened
VidPro
Flashlight Enthusiast
low and slow , many normal light bulbs will last many times longer on slightly less voltage being put into them. like we have some wall curcuits that are "half wave" and the incan bulbs last many time longer.
there was once a flat diode you could buy to reduce total power going to a bulb (by half waving the ac) , it would drop in the bulb socket, it would save power and make the bulbs last 3-4times longer, but the bulb ran much dimmer.
the "2 year" bulbs that are sold by companies like phillips, have thicker filiments, and run "lower" , probably the filiment is longer, they look obviously dimmer than thier respective similar wattage counterparts, and certannly last many times longer.
which brings up this carbon filiment thing with a hugely long filiment of very high resistance, pulling very small amounts of total power, and looking very dim, its not melting down white hot.
what do the people want? bright , even when comparing "long lasting" bulbs to 700-1200hr stuff, ya gotta wonder if the wasted power $$-per-KW from the power company , is worth the cost of the usual $1.50 bulb item.
i donno, mabey i should do the math , but we use more halogen and unfrosted which is lasting 3-5times longer already, and a 25halogen can work in place of some 40W frosted incans.
Bright Burnout Bulb Math:
700hours x 100W bulb = 70KWh of total power consumption (hot running bright short life bulb)
assume we need 120W on a bulb designed to last longer or 2x60W or something, to get the same output.
700hours x 120W bulb = 84KWh (dimmer long life bulb)
so
assume in this about gestimation, where we lost the 700hour bulb from burnout, that used 14KWh less than the long lasting bulb, putting out the same light.
then assume we have to pay $1.50 to replace the bulb regularly.
IF
were paying more than 10c for each Kilowatthour thing from the power company, the brighter disposable light would begin to save money.
because
we got more LIGHT out of the bulb when it was running hotter, and dying sooner, relative to how much light we would get out of a dimmer Long lasting bulb, and the cost we have to pay for that power.
we can safely ignore that the burnout bulb takes probably 20KWH of power to make :o , because they probably dont pay as much for power as we do , and it keeps everything in the Loop.
gee did i go a bit off topic :huh:
ohh the 100 year bulb, they indicated it puts out a comparitive 4 watts of light and uses 7watts of power, it has since wasted 2628KWh of power, or $394.20 (US inflation adjusted dollers) vrses a 4watt modern bulb, assuming my math and stuff is correct. oops, corrected.
there was once a flat diode you could buy to reduce total power going to a bulb (by half waving the ac) , it would drop in the bulb socket, it would save power and make the bulbs last 3-4times longer, but the bulb ran much dimmer.
the "2 year" bulbs that are sold by companies like phillips, have thicker filiments, and run "lower" , probably the filiment is longer, they look obviously dimmer than thier respective similar wattage counterparts, and certannly last many times longer.
which brings up this carbon filiment thing with a hugely long filiment of very high resistance, pulling very small amounts of total power, and looking very dim, its not melting down white hot.
what do the people want? bright , even when comparing "long lasting" bulbs to 700-1200hr stuff, ya gotta wonder if the wasted power $$-per-KW from the power company , is worth the cost of the usual $1.50 bulb item.
i donno, mabey i should do the math , but we use more halogen and unfrosted which is lasting 3-5times longer already, and a 25halogen can work in place of some 40W frosted incans.
Bright Burnout Bulb Math:
700hours x 100W bulb = 70KWh of total power consumption (hot running bright short life bulb)
assume we need 120W on a bulb designed to last longer or 2x60W or something, to get the same output.
700hours x 120W bulb = 84KWh (dimmer long life bulb)
so
assume in this about gestimation, where we lost the 700hour bulb from burnout, that used 14KWh less than the long lasting bulb, putting out the same light.
then assume we have to pay $1.50 to replace the bulb regularly.
IF
were paying more than 10c for each Kilowatthour thing from the power company, the brighter disposable light would begin to save money.
because
we got more LIGHT out of the bulb when it was running hotter, and dying sooner, relative to how much light we would get out of a dimmer Long lasting bulb, and the cost we have to pay for that power.
we can safely ignore that the burnout bulb takes probably 20KWH of power to make :o , because they probably dont pay as much for power as we do , and it keeps everything in the Loop.
gee did i go a bit off topic :huh:
ohh the 100 year bulb, they indicated it puts out a comparitive 4 watts of light and uses 7watts of power, it has since wasted 2628KWh of power, or $394.20 (US inflation adjusted dollers) vrses a 4watt modern bulb, assuming my math and stuff is correct. oops, corrected.
Last edited:
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
Jackal-Head
Newly Enlightened
VidPro
Flashlight Enthusiast
ahhh, the fat glass is a urban myth
but solid or liquid ? they dont know what it is :-)
look at the wiki referances used to say it is NOT.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html
There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience.
ok but they werent defining it for normal human reality, they were defining it based on its molecular structure stuff.
solid enough for me :-) but the classification came about apon attempting to define it. it was not fully crystalised at room temperature. so why cant they just say that , and be done with it. its not like were trying to define 11th dimentions that dont exist.
from the corning museum of glass http://www.cmog.org/default.aspxhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question404.htm&url=http://www.cmog.org
Did you know that glass is its own state of matter not a solid, liquid, OR gas? I would buy that.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm
why glass is transparent like water is transparent, or better yet, if it being in a random non-crystalised state makes it transparent , why doesn't supercooling it make align into crystalisation pattern, and suddenly turn it opaque? and why can i see through an ice sculture :-)
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=10427
notice they FAILED to show a liquid-liquid state change
now i have always concidered myself sort of solid, but being full of it , err i mean full of liquid , i am actually liquid, even the bones arent to solid, but supercooled in liquid nitrogen , and then its not only solid but quite brittle, so did my bones go from a liquid into a solid :-)
Glass is not just one item before, due to impurities , and it is not one item now due to additives, so its always been sorta like me always anyway.
ahhh science, where would we be without it? probably trying to make Metal transparent, ohh wait , they are.
they will have 50 more seminars on wether it is or not before the year is over, almost like arguing if LEDs are better or worse than Incadescent.
but solid or liquid ? they dont know what it is :-)
look at the wiki referances used to say it is NOT.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html
There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. In terms of its material properties we can do little better. There is no clear definition of the distinction between solids and highly viscous liquids. All such phases or states of matter are idealisations of real material properties. Nevertheless, from a more common sense point of view, glass should be considered a solid since it is rigid according to everyday experience.
ok but they werent defining it for normal human reality, they were defining it based on its molecular structure stuff.
solid enough for me :-) but the classification came about apon attempting to define it. it was not fully crystalised at room temperature. so why cant they just say that , and be done with it. its not like were trying to define 11th dimentions that dont exist.
from the corning museum of glass http://www.cmog.org/default.aspxhttp://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question404.htm&url=http://www.cmog.org
Did you know that glass is its own state of matter not a solid, liquid, OR gas? I would buy that.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm
why glass is transparent like water is transparent, or better yet, if it being in a random non-crystalised state makes it transparent , why doesn't supercooling it make align into crystalisation pattern, and suddenly turn it opaque? and why can i see through an ice sculture :-)
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=10427
notice they FAILED to show a liquid-liquid state change
now i have always concidered myself sort of solid, but being full of it , err i mean full of liquid , i am actually liquid, even the bones arent to solid, but supercooled in liquid nitrogen , and then its not only solid but quite brittle, so did my bones go from a liquid into a solid :-)
Glass is not just one item before, due to impurities , and it is not one item now due to additives, so its always been sorta like me always anyway.
ahhh science, where would we be without it? probably trying to make Metal transparent, ohh wait , they are.
they will have 50 more seminars on wether it is or not before the year is over, almost like arguing if LEDs are better or worse than Incadescent.
Last edited:
rockz4532
Enlightened
Anyone know the ROP Lo and Hi bulb life when driven at 7.6v (2x Li-ions)?
buickid
Enlightened
Wrong thread? :confused:
broadgage
Enlightened
Drifting somewhat O/T the glass in very old church windows is often thicker at the bottom than at the top.
This has resulted in the widely held belief that the glass has flowed downwards
In fact, hundreds of years ago, the thickness of a piece of glass varied substantialy over its area. It was considered stronger and more watertight to mount such glass with the thickest edge at the bottom.
To return to the O/P I believe incandescent and halogen lamps should keep almost forever, the glass part should last forever, and the metal cap would take centuries to corrode appreciably in clean dry conditions.
I have some incandescent flashlight bulbs about 60 years old, and they seem fine.
Some "lamp assemblies" use plastic or epoxy components and these might eventually perish, but I would expect decades of storeage life.
Higher power halogen lamps have a qaurtz bulb, lower powered ones such as PR base halogen flashlight bulbs normally use hard glass, both types should keep almost forever.
broadgage
Enlightened
Update re above, I have just tested 28 large flashlight bulbs, believed to be at least 60 years old.
Two failed instantly due to air in the bulb, the rest work fine. Of course I dont know if air had graduly leaked into the defective ones, or if they were faulty when manufactured.
The bulbs in question are 8 volt 0.3 amp and may have been intended for 7/8 cell flashlights or lanterns.
Alternativly they may have been intended for series burning with 0.3 amp vaccuum tube filaments in radios.
I have just purchased a qauntity of NOS flashlight bulbs and other miniture lamps.
Including some uncommon outside frosted prefocus lamps marked as 2.3 volt 0.27 amp, but actually about 0.55 amp.
Two failed instantly due to air in the bulb, the rest work fine. Of course I dont know if air had graduly leaked into the defective ones, or if they were faulty when manufactured.
The bulbs in question are 8 volt 0.3 amp and may have been intended for 7/8 cell flashlights or lanterns.
Alternativly they may have been intended for series burning with 0.3 amp vaccuum tube filaments in radios.
I have just purchased a qauntity of NOS flashlight bulbs and other miniture lamps.
Including some uncommon outside frosted prefocus lamps marked as 2.3 volt 0.27 amp, but actually about 0.55 amp.
swampgator
Enlightened
Nevermind.....experiencing cranial flatulence
lctorana
Flashlight Enthusiast
swampgator
Enlightened
Nope, just had an old fashioned brain fart.
Latest posts
-
-
Which discontinued flashlights do you wish were still made?- Latest: gottawearshades
-
-
-
-
-
-
