Slashdot Mirror


Edison Would Have Loved New Light Bulb Law, Says His Great-Grandson

New submitter futuristic writes with a link to Thomas Edison's great-grandson's take on Thomas Edison and the alleged demise of the incandescent light bulb. From the article: "My great grandfather's 100-watt incandescent will be replaced with new energy-efficient versions, including CFLs, LEDs, and — yes — new and improved incandescent bulbs. ... And my great-grandfather wouldn't have it any other way."

32 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolute bullshit. As much as any sensible man should support the new lightbulb law, Edison was *not* a sensible man. All you need to know to figure out his stance on old outdated technology versus new, superior technology is this: DC vs. AC, Edison vs. Tesla.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't old vs new technology, it was where he could make the most. I'm sure he'd love the new laws....if he could make a buck from them.

    2. Re:Bullshit by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean Washington, DC? Because you can't do half of the things with direct current that are possible with AC. And I don't mean Anonymous Cowards. AND DC is in fact way more dangerous than AC, especially if the AC frequency is very high.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:Bullshit by countvlad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Any sensible man would know we shouldn't have such stupid laws. If CFLs/LEDs/etc are so superior, why do we need a law banning them? If everyone cares enough about the environment to pass a law to mandate the use of such bulbs, don't enough of us care that a law isn't necessary? The government shouldn't be passing laws for this kind of BS, guidelines and industry standard recommendations maybe, but not laws.

      If you want to save electricity, how about turning off the millions of street and parking lot lights at night? How about wiring homes with DC so that damn near every piece of electric equipment doesn't have to take a >10% efficiency hit in order to operate? Or a law to limit the number of hours a TV can be used (we can all agree that that freedom isn't needed anymore, right)?

      Maybe we should have laws limiting the amount of power your computer can draw or how long it can be on. Or perhaps outlaw that scourge to computer efficiency, the hard drive?

    4. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep, that's why every single device in my house has an AC/DC converter, to convert that superior AC to something that they can actually fucking use.

      Puts out a ton of waste heat in the process too, although since it's winter now, I suppose that's just as well.

      The AC/DC converters to your electronics are where you're spending most of your energy, huh? Do you have those hooked up to your fridge? Air Conditioner? Washer and Dryer?

      AC power is the way to go power large motors. you don't need a commutator. Brushless DC motors are actually AC motors, btw, they need an inverter.

    5. Re:Bullshit by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean, my light bulbs composed of LEDs? Yes, they're DC.

    6. Re:Bullshit by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Transformers were invented back then - that is why AC had the advantage. The big technological proponent of AC was Tesla who (In between contributing to our modern image of the Mad Scientist by electrifying the atmosphere of an entire planet) designed the foundation upon which the national grid would be built. He knew transformers. He invented a whole new type of transformer, and called it a Tesla coil.

    7. Re:Bullshit by jrmcferren · · Score: 5, Informative

      Incandescent technology isn't being banned, just being pushed to evolve a little. If you need to dim look for 29, 43, 53, and 72, watt halogen bulbs. These replace 40, 60, 75, and 100 watt standard bulbs respectively and comply with the new law. These are marketed under the Eco Smart brand by Phillips, Super Saver by Sylvania (Made in USA too), GE also sell them. These are more pricey than standard bulbs and the Sylvaina ones are 1/4 inch less in diameter, but are a suitable replacement.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    8. Re:Bullshit by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same reason there are building codes. People would just buy cheap houses that fall down and have all sorts of other hazards otherwise. People are pretty dumb and cheap. We're doing all sorts of other things to reduce energy use, also, including having new standards (laws) for energy efficiency for cars and applicances. We should also update building codes to require more insulation.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    9. Re:Bullshit by gstrickler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dimmable CFLs do work, (they're used in nearly all LCD monitors, other than those that now use dimmable LEDs). Neither is as simple as a dimmable incandescent, but they are available and they do work. However, dimmers designed for incandescent bulbs are not optimal for CFL or LED lights. Your best option to replace incandescent bulbs in dimming fixtures are the newer, more efficient incandescent or halogen bulbs, or replace both the dimmer and the bulbs.

      BTW, only standard bulbs are affected by the new regulations, specialty bulbs (e.g. "decorator", "teardrop", "sconce", etc.) are not affected. These are the types of bulbs most frequently used with dimmers.

      I never said there aren't valid uses for incandescent bulbs (particularly halogen bulbs), I only challenged the OPs statement, and I fully expect him to fail to provide a single valid example that justifies his statement.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    10. Re:Bullshit by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't transmit power over long distances at end-user voltage; the resistive losses make it impractical. A century ago there was no efficient way to step DC voltages up/down for long-distance transmission; AC made it possible to use simple and inexpensive electromagnetic transformers for this.

      Even today, if we supplied DC to individual homes it would still need to be at a voltage too high for most electronics (that pesky resistive loss issue again), so you'd still need converters. Yes, they would be DC-DC instead of AC-DC, but this would only make them marginally more efficient.

    11. Re:Bullshit by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also the above statements is FUD.

      No, not really. It wasn't until fairly late in the 20th century that DC-DC converters and switched-mode power supplies became usably efficient. Prior to that, AC was the only realistic way to bump power up to high enough voltages to do long-distance power transmission without *huge* resistive losses. So yes, if we were designing the power grid today, DC might be practical, but a hundred years ago, it wasn't, at least not scalably.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Bullshit by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While that is completely true, today, it's not relevant to the situation around the last turn of the century. The primary consumer of electricity back then was industry, which used it to run large, steady state electric motors. The motors were designed to run at one single speed, directly off the mains frequency, and the utilities offered a number of different frequencies (besides 60Hz) to cater to different customers. There was no conversion needed, and brushless AC motors were much more reliable than brushed DC motors. Brushless DC motors have only been available since the mid 60s due to the availability of microprocessor-based controller circuitry.

    13. Re:Bullshit by jbengt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is not why we have building codes.

      Like it or not, setting standards of construction, including efficiency standards, is the main reason for building codes.

      Building codes exist so that you don't need to hire an engineer to design and analyze your house.

      On the contrary, in most cases building codes require you (the builder, that is) to hire engineers, or at least an architect. They usually explicitly disallow construction permits without a licensed architect's stamp on the drawings, and will often require the stamp of an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer even for a simple house. Requirements about soil properties, earthquakes, hurricanes, or anything beyond a simple house will usually require a structural engineer's stamp, as well.

      If you follow the codes you should be able to build a decent house cheaply.

      Building codes (to the extent they are about houses) are far from sufficient to enable you to know how to build a decent house, let alone how to do it cheaply.

    14. Re:Bullshit by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What bullshit. Anybody who wants to pay more in taxes can at any time do so, without be compelled to do so. ... The only fucking reason this hypocrite pays less taxes is because he sets out to do so from the beginning.

      No, THAT is the real bullshit. There is no contradiction between using "loopholes" and simultaneously wanting the loopholes to be taken out of the system because the simple fact of it is that there is no such thing as a loophole - only legal and illegal actions. Buffet explicitly wants the capital gains tax rate to be increased such that taking his income as dividends instead of earned income won't save him or his cronies from the higher tax rates that regular people pay.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Bullshit by xero314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not saying your point is wrong, but your argument does not hold. The top 5% control greater than 90% of the capital resources in the US, yet pay only 60% of the burden of maintaining that wealth (using the number you supplied). I'm not saying whether I support either side in this, I'm just saying you need a better argument.

    16. Re:Bullshit by Lanteran · · Score: 5, Funny

      AC vs DC flamewars? Damn, slashdot must be older than I thought.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  2. I think he's assuming by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that had Thomas Edison been alive today, he would have held the patents on these assorted new lightbulbs.

  3. Re:FP? by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really?

    Chances are he would have held one or more patents on the new light bulb so it would have been a source of income for him.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  4. Edison didn't invent the light bulb... by slagish666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...he just bought the patent from two Toronto inventors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Woodward_(inventor)

    --
    "Consider the lillies of the goddamn field."
    1. Re:Edison didn't invent the light bulb... by westlake · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...he just bought the patent from two Toronto inventors. (wikipedia.org)

      Read on:

      Thomas Edison obtained an exclusive license to the Canadian patent. Thomas Edison developed his own design of incandescent lamp with a high resistance thin filament of carbon in a high vacuum contained in a tightly sealed glass bulb which had a sufficiently long service life to be commercially practical.

      Historians Robert Friedel and Paul Israel list 22 inventors of incandescent lamps prior to Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison. They conclude that Edison's version was able to outstrip the others because of a combination of three factors: an effective incandescent material, a higher vacuum than others were able to achieve and a high resistance that made power distribution from a centralized source economically viable.

      Another historian, Thomas Hughes, has attributed Edison's success to the fact that he developed an entire, integrated system of electric lighting.

      The lamp was a small component in his system of electric lighting, and no more critical to its effective functioning than the Edison Jumbo generator, the Edison main and feeder, and the parallel-distribution system. Other inventors with generators and incandescent lamps, and with comparable ingenuity and excellence, have long been forgotten because their creators did not preside over their introduction in a system of lighting.

      Incandescent light bulb

      Perhaps this will give you a small taste of Edison's achievement:

      Much is said about the subdivision of the electric light by certain gentlemen, who hope to distribute it throughout our houses from one central [source] and furnish it cheaply and abundantly in our cities. I am one of those who do not believe in the impossible, but I say that, with our present knowledge, this problem is unsolvable. Sir William Armstrong can only keep thirty-seven lamps going ; Lane- Fox could only show twelve lights ; Professor Adams could only produce from the most powerful dynamo-electric machine, by calculation, one hundred and forty lamps. Where is the subdivision ?

      Popular Science Monthly/Volume 19/July 1881/Recent Advances in Electric Lighting

      The system that emerged from Edison's lab included practical designs for generators, mainline distribution systems, home wiring standards, switches, sockets, fuses, training programs for linesmen and electricians.

      Essentially everything you would need for wiring a city without burning it to the ground or electrocuting half the population.

  5. Holy crap, he's not lying.... by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well this is refreshing; it looks like the truth. Usually people cramming words into the mouths of the dead are self-serving, bullshit-spewing weirdos. Either that or maudlin, irrelevant losers.

    This guy, on the other hand, is a university professor who appears to have actual research behind his claims. It goes against him, of course, that he's attempting to improve or revive his famous great-grandfather's reputation with this article, but the research looks real and I presume it's open to review.

    How refreshing.

  6. And the free market always finds a way... by stockard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can already get around the restrictions if you want an old fashioned light bulb, they're just called Heatballs instead. Two guys in Germany started marketing them as "heaters that fit into a light socket" last year after a similar law went through in the EU.

    1. Re:And the free market always finds a way... by CaptBubba · · Score: 5, Informative

      And they sold their original stock which they had from before the efficiency rules, then customs stopped the importation of any more because they are not idiots and know a smartass when they see one.

      http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&twu=1&u=http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/kleinheizgeraet-heatball-zoll-haelt-40-000-gluehbirnen-auf-11065089.html

      People are missing the major point here: There is no incandescent ban in the US, only an efficiency requirement. If someone can invent a filament bulb which meets the requirements they are free to sell them... oh wait they already did and it is called a halogen bulb; you can pick them up at any hardware store.

  7. Well these days there's a lot of be said for DC by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    But only because we've got technology they didn't back then. When it comes to long distance transmission, voltage is key because of Ohms law. The more current you have the bigger your conductor has to be to prevent loss.

    Well transformers can easily and quite efficiently step up and down AC voltage. So you can have hundreds of thousands of volts, far more than you'd want in a home, over a distribution line. There was no equivalent technology for DC back when the current wars were going on.

    Now there is, thyristors. They are solid state devices that do a good job of efficient DC-DC conversion. So it is possible today to do HVDC lines and indeed it is done. There are some advantages (like no skin effect).

    Prior to that the best there was is mercury arc valves. Those worked and were used, but had some serious limits. Even then, they didn't come on the scene until about the 1920s, and the current wars were back in the 1880s.

    So sure, if we redesigned the grid today, maybe DC would make sense, however there are some things that AC works really well for. Thing is, we didn't design it today, we designed it in the 1800s and back then, AC was it. Edison's DC plan called for there to be generators all over the place since long runs were out of the question. That is a shitty way to do things, not only because you don't want generators in your neighborhood but because as with many things, generators scale with efficiency in terms of size.

    1. Re:Well these days there's a lot of be said for DC by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      HVDC is OK.

      DC for homes is not - it's quite difficult to arc-proof a switch for 110/220VDC. In the late 1930's, when DC was being phased out here in Australia a couple of relatives of mine experienced arcs in DC light switches that progressed out of the switch and up the cabling feeding them. Only way to stop them was to go and find the next breaker upstream.....

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  8. Re:FP? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

        Heh. That's pretty much what I was going to say.. If he had the patent(s) on it, he'd praise it as the best thing since ... well ... the light bulb. If he didn't, he'd be pushing all the reasons that it was horrible and dangerous.

        That's the way he played.. Otherwise, we would be praising the successor to the Joseph Swan light bulb.

        Patents are a bitch, and Edison was the original patent troll.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  9. Re:FP? by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

        Actually, that would have been "Consolidated Edison" eventually shortened to "ConEd". Otherwise, you're absolutely right. How much did he cheat the world from, by not funding Tesla? We'll never know.

        Well, unless the conspiracy theory that Tesla managed to make himself immortal, and moved to Argentina to pursue high energy experiments for gravity control and space travel are true. I kid you not, I picked up a really good book on Tesla. The last two chapters went into this wild conspiracy stuff. What an awful way to ruin a really informative book. I was under the distinct impression that the publishers read the first few chapters, and confirmed the facts, but no on bothered to read the whole thing before it went to press.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  10. Buffet uses loopholes to pay less taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't Warren Buffet want to change the tax laws so he makes less money?

    Well you can believe (A) what a man says in political speeches or (B) what a man does in reality. In reality Buffet uses loopholes to engineer his personal pay in order to avoid taxes. He pays himself in dividends, which is taxed at a lower rate than regular income. If he wanted to pay the same taxes as his secretary he could pay himself in money, an ordinary paycheck, the same way she and nearly everyone else is paid.

    Buffet favors an inheritance tax but he then gives all his money to the Gates foundation, again avoiding taxation.

    Classic 1% behavior. Do as I say not as I do. Reminds me of Senator Ted Kennedy, all pro environment and green energy until someone wants to put up wind turbines that can be viewed from his beachfront property.

  11. Re:FP? by quenda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Edison would have loved LEDs and hated CFLs. LEDs are always DC and CFL always AC inside.

  12. Re:FP? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He'd be shocking animals to death with the new lightbulbs, suing Westinghouse and Tesla and everyone else, and in general acting like any other a$$hole - because that's what he was, and that's what he did, as well as cheating Tesla out of $$$ - all putting the "Con" in "Con Edison."

    Uhhh...how EXACTLY is that flamebait? doesn't anyone know their history anymore? it was Edison that was frying animals and pushing for the electric chair because he was sure it would discredit Tesla and AC power and since he had DC patented up the ass he stood to make a fortune if he pulled it off. its pretty common knowledge that even after it was proven that with the tech of the time DC just wouldn't scale Edison was pushing for "neighborhood generators' belching out coal smoke to power a couple of blocks rather than admit while DC had its uses it wasn't gonna work long distance.

    Sorry to burst anyone's bubbles but while Edison was a brilliant man he was also as ruthless as they come and had NO problem with deep roasting animals and people just to try to ruin a competitor. Hell Gates and Jobs didn't have nothing on Edison as i can't really picture Jobs having someone bashed to death with an IBM PC to "prove" they were unsafe.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  13. Re:Really? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, because it is impossible to prove. I call it the post-mortem fallacy: where someone argues a position is held by another who was dead long before he or she could have had any opinion on the topic. We don't know what opinion Edison would have had on the new law.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.