(10) Technologies That Deserve To Die

From: "10 technologies that deserve to die" By Bruce Sterling Technology Review

10.21.2003

A science fiction writer's irreverent take. [More than irreverent, he seems to be misinformed on occasion. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with any of the rest of his article. Sadly, he doesn't seem to be aware that incandescents have already been replaced in most commercial situations. With fluo lights, of course.]

  1. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS

IN REALITY, these sad devices are "heat bulbs." Supposedly a lighting technology, they produce nine times more raw heat than they do illumination. The light they do give, admittedly, is still prettier than the eerie glow of compact fluorescents and light- emitting diodes. But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.

Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy hassle of running air conditioners to do battle with the blazing heat of all these round little glass stoves...let's face it, these gizmos deserve to vanish.

They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool, and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely suited to a consumer's human eyeball. Our descendants will stare at those vacuum-shrouded wires as if they were whale-oil lanterns.

--
----------------(from OED Mini-Dictionary)-----------------
PUNCTUATION - Apostrophe
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Lizard Blizzard
Loading thread data ...

I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is it's hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has travelled through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.

Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass, yet I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't break! Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one falling just

2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad its fall.

If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with? Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time for a variety of reasons.

Tim

-- "That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson Website @

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams

I think the whole point of this was that incandescents have most of their electromagnetic radiation in the _wrong_ part of the spectrum, namely IR. Of course that's where it's needed the least. Unless of course you're using the light blub in an incubator! ;-)

Economically unfeasible? If so, then why are they all over the place? I think you need to explain your assertions. And we haven't even discussed HID lamps. I think you need to thoroughly read Don's Lighting web pages.

formatting link

--
----------------(from OED Mini-Dictionary)-----------------
PUNCTUATION - Apostrophe
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Lizard Blizzard

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time. There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same .. inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to

250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.
Reply to
oldsoundguy

The trouble with CF lamps is that they're all so bright! If you want to replace a 15 or 25 watt incandescent in a small lamp or something, all the available CFs are blinding! I think that they all want to make the point of how efficient they are.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

"Lizard Blizzard" schreef in bericht news:bnbdkc$4jp12$ snipped-for-privacy@hades.csu.net...

Sure, but who needs natural daylight at night?

That's a mixture of arguments but only partly true. Cost? What are the cheaper alternatives? Fragile? I've broken more drinking glasses then lightbulbs. Replacement overhead? In a business environment yes, in a common household no. Waste of energy? Sure, all electrical light sources are inefficient. Although fluorescents do better then incandescents. Glass? We have plenty of it. Nevertheless there are recycling projects. Tungsten? May be a point. Although I guess we will run out of fuel (oil etc.) before we run out of tungsten.

I'm very interested in that new technology. Because it's for sure that our current electrical light sources produce much more heat then light. But as too often there's a lot af fiction and wishfull thinking and hardly science among that scifi guys. As long as this superior technology does not appear, I'll buy a new lightbulb when the old one is gone. Maybe I'll look for a fluorescent if I expect it to be more economical. Nevertheless the lightbulbs will have their use for many years to come. Even the old oil lanterns are still used today, although I prefer the cheaper salad oil instead of olive oil to power them. (Cann't get whale oil around here :) ).

petrus

--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
petrus bitbyter

Obviously, the answer must then be to get the bulb moving towards you at about 1/2 the speed of light, the doppler shift ought to brighten things up... ;)

I mean general home use - indeed they are everywhere in commercial/ industrial settings. But I don't see many around here in fixtures.

I'll look after I snip your damned sig...

Tim

-- "That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson Website @

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams

In article , snipped-for-privacy@hccnet.nl mentioned...

Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission fluids? Weird!

formatting link

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox repairers when they removed it.

Reply to
Mjolinor

In article , snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com mentioned...

Why? Did they get high off it? :-P

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" Gave us:

Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission. Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.

Reply to
DarkMatter

It also worked wonders in watches, just as rec.crafts.metalworking!

I wonder if you could find any in Japan, if not at least on the black market... ;-)

Tim

-- "That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson Website @

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Williams

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:43:52 -0500, "Tim Williams" Gave us:

Not likely. My brother still has a bottle of gear oil that has it in it.

I still have some ivory.

Both items won't be worth much until some time passes.

Reply to
DarkMatter

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

Reply to
ehsjr

I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..." i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more without it. i.e. it performed better. :-)

Cheers! Rich

DarkMatter wrote:

Reply to
Rich Grise

It Ain't Rocket Science.

-$250.00 initial investment for install: balance = -250.

+$100.00 savings on first month's electric bill: balance = -150.00 +$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = -50.00 +$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +50.00 +$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +150.00 +$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +250.00

etc.

snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net wrote:

Reply to
Rich Grise

It wasn't intended to be cryptic :) ATF works better with whale oil extracts in and they break more often without it. It was used in ATF, it may also have been used in hypoys, I don't know about that.

Reply to
Mjolinor

In article , snipped-for-privacy@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

In article , snipped-for-privacy@aol.com mentioned...

I guess you didn't read the above URL, did you. Duh.

Oh, yeah, now I see. Forget I said that. It was a total waste of time. Ignore it. I don't need to wear my asbestos underwear right now. (no wonder my a$$hole filter didn't catch that, it was from a previous followup.)

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

In article , snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com mentioned...

A guy I worked for long ago told me an interesting story. For years, Chrysler cars had the automatic trans with the torque converter which performed better than others. Rolls Royce decided (finally) that it was time to replace their manual 'gearbox' with an automatic, so they chose the Chrysler design. They saw the bumps and imperfections on the castings of Chrysler's trans and in their zeal for perfection, removed them. But the trans would not work as well, so they had to leave the bumps and imperfections in.

I don't know if this was true or any of the details (hey, it's been a few decades), only that this guy was knowledgeable about such things, and wouldn't tell a tall tale. Just wondering of others had ever heard of such a thing.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.