What pissed me off most in recent years was the demonization of the incandescent light bulb by liberals and Jews who saw a dollar to be made in the transition to other light sources. I used to be able to buy packs of incandescent bulbs for twenty-five cents each bulb. Sure, they burned out, but they were cheap and reliable (by that I mean they worked). They were dimmable. They could be used outside in the cold or in a fridge. Today, if I want a lightbulb that is dimmable, I have to pay five dollars. Is it twenty times better than the cheap incandescents I used to buy for a quarter? No, it is not.
I was no fan of incandescent bulbs that burned out in a few hundred hours, but the thing is, light bulb makers had bulbs that would last ten times that long. They just weren't selling them because they wanted to maximize their profits. So they got together and rigged the light bulb market. What should have happened is that their longer-life incandescents should have been mandated by government, and the other kinds of more expensive bulbs, such as flourescent and light-emitting diod, should have been allowed to come into the market gradually, as an option for those who wanted to buy them. But no, we were forced to buy the bulbs that were twenty times more expensive, and wouldn't dim.
I used to be able to buy packs of incandescent bulbs for twenty-five cents each bulb. Sure, they burned out, but they were cheap and reliable (by that I mean they worked). They were dimmable. They could be used outside in the cold or in a fridge.
And they had a CRI of 99+. Now you have to pay a lot and they still don't have as good a CRI.
I was no fan of incandescent bulbs that burned out in a few hundred hours, but the thing is, light bulb makers had bulbs that would last ten times that long.
Sure, but they had a thicker filament that operated at a lower temperature, and thus emitted more infrared and wasted more power. You an still get these, called rough service bulbs.
(post is archived)