Technology Connections is WRONG About Lightbulbs (Has Done Plenty of Research!!!)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- Heyo, this one is self-filmed/edited by in my opinion the change from using a real editor is barely noticeable 😉
References (in rough order of appearance)
• Longer-lasting light b...
• Planned Obsolescence W...
• They Literally Don't M...
en.wikipedia.o...
United States v. General Electric Co., 82 F. Supp. 753 (D.N.J. 1949)
law.justia.com...
The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy, Markus Krajewski
spectrum.ieee....
Fehler-Planungen: Zur Geschichte und Theorie der industriellen Obsoleszenz. Markus Krajewski
Energy-using durables - why consumers refrain from economically optimal choices, Schubert and Stadelmann
The Lightbulb Paradox: Using Behavioral Economics for Policy Evaluation, Hunt Allcott and Dmitry Taubinsky
Long Live the Light Bulb! By Harriet L. Blake, www.washington...
Two youtubers: Have nuanced, reasoned, and even partially overlapping takes.
RUclips: Is this Drama?
So far (20 minutes in) I actually am finding myself agreeing with the opinions in this video, but I think it's not correct to suggest that Technology Connections was being biased, but rather came to a different conclusion that Unlearning Economics Live and myself, simply disagree with.
This is such a nice back and forth. Reminds me of the time where video answers was still a YT-feature...
Would be cool if we got that back instead of a tiktok clone.
I appreciate the conspicuously bright desk lamp behind you 😄
So glad someone noticed this!
just a funny bit on how it can sometimes be possible to change consumer behavior:
was with my mum in wal mart ages ago and attempted to talk her into buy CFLs instead of incandescent bulbs. she wasn't having it; you could buy a large pack of incandescent bulbs for the cost of a single CFL. since the bulbs were right next to each other, it was trivial for any consumer to do the face value math of how much more expensive the CFL was, and any savings from bulb operation were not so tangible
so i got tired of this and said, 'fine, if you will not buy the CFLs instead then i will buy them'
and this just immediately changed her mind on the spot. she didn't, i supposed, like the idea of being so out of touch that her son was going to buy the modern household bulbs out of his allowance
so she bought the CFLs and hasn't bought any incandescent since
Thank you for pointing out that the choice was not binary, and that there's probably an optimal point in the continuum that doesn't optimize exclusively for profit. It was more or less my comment in that video.
there are probably different optima for different people. some lamps are in hard to access places so the cost of replacing is particularly high. others may live in areas where energy is particularly expensive.
of course with LED lamps the tradeoffs are very different, the most energy efficient LED lamps also tend to be longest lasting.
I'm not sure I even see a disagreement between the videos, TC points out that what they did was inevitable, UE points out they did it before even considering the engineering constraints and became the first popular case in a growing pattern that became our hyper consumerist economy.
After watching the videos, I get the impression the cartel did the inevitable decision for the wrong reasons, sometimes the science and engineering constraints forces capitalists to do the right thing even if it's for the wrong reasons.
It's like oil companies investing in renewables not to save the planet, but purely because the industry is becoming more profitable than scraping the bottom of the barrel for more oil.
There was no inevitable decision. What you optimise for is what you get. If you optimise for profit you may get increased brightness but as pointed out it may be at the cost of longetivity in terms of what's optimal. The sweet spot may be the point that may require a little less brightness and significantly more longetivity.
The bit about consumers and inertia is really sticking with me.
I'm fairly particular about lighting and had a whole phase where I became determined to never need to touch a light switch in my house again. When it comes to luminance, my experience is that the only wrong choice is no choice. That is, optional light brightness is optimal.
With modern lighting this is a cinch. You don't even need to install a dimmer. Many lights can be adjusted through an app or pre-programming.
My thing is, it took time and motivation (and expense) to arrive at an understanding of what I wanted lights to do for me. That motivation is where I'm stuck. I get migraines from time to time and alongside those comes photohypersensitivity. When I have a migraine, if it's too bright in a room, I feel literal nauseating pain. So I have an incentive to think about and develop opinions about lighting. When I tell people about my adventures in fully automating the lighting in my home and making it adjustable from just about anywhere at any time, mostly I get the sense that most people just do not give a f*** about the lighting around them. If I don't explain the migraine thing (which is really only one factor of many) people generally think I'm kind of a weirdo who thinks about light too much. Which, fair. But thinking from the perspective of a light manufacturer, if I had to make a decision about what types of light to manufacture and LEDs didn't exist yet, going off of my experience alone, I think a manufacturer would be justified in appointing themselves arbiter of appropriate lighting.
Lighting preferences are arbitrary and most people really don't seem to care all that much in the first place. Granted, I'm fairly certain that if someone who has just been sticking with fixed wattage bulbs in their sockets their whole life were to spend a week at my house and experience the utility of not having to faff about with light switches all the time, I think most people would at least come to appreciate that having more options is a good thing. But mostly I think that people don't know what they want until you present something to them. Which means you have to produce something in the first place.
Am I making my issue clear? Feels kinda rambly but we're talking about perceptions here so I feel like I need to demonstrate where I'm coming from on this one.
A little technical point is that the tradeoff is lifespan vs power efficiency, not technically brighntness. A shorter lifespan bulb will suck down less power at a given brightness than a longer lifespan bulb. This isn’t saying that the cartel wasn’t fudging things just that this technical point is important.
I faff about with light switches for about 5 seconds a day not all the time
@@sn1000k Use cases do indeed vary.
Okay. I'm absolutely sick of this Wikiepdia slander. Is it a scholarly source? no. It is where you should be doing research? not entirely. But I hate how people are so mad at Wikipedia as a bad source, when it's one of the very few success stories of knowledge accessibility. Wikipedia will not tell you everything, but it it is institutionally strong against misinformation.
That's literally what the video says
It's also THE best place to go for both an overview of a topic as well as a list of places to go for a deeper dive. That alone makes it a worthwhile resource, I legitimately can't think of an equivalent that is higher tech than an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is one of the many proofs hiding in plain sight that people are capable of self-organizing, and don't require top-down management.
It's flawed, of course; but imagine something like wikipedia, in a culture with values that incentivize liberty through mutual inter-dependence.
This was interesting, thanks.
I did also comment on the TC video that limiting the lifespan of the lightbulb is a rather roundabout way to ensure efficiency or brightness. Maybe this could be explained away by measuring the lifespan being easier to measure than brightness, but I think you adequately proved that the cartel's main motivation in keeping the lifespan down was profit.
I find myself agreeing with you and this videos creator. My only point of contention is that I don't believe TC is being biased, I think he just came to a different conclusion based on his personality, or beliefs and also probably his feelings about corporations. I happen to be libertarian leaning left, so I'm predisposed to distrust corporations and governments, which sometimes leads to negative consequences, but also tends to help you avoid being taken advantage of by corporations and governments.
Thank you for raising your voice for dark rooms. Lightsensitive people are real and fu whoever switches the light switch when told not to. Also check your flickering parameter of your lightbulb before buying(Pst or something like that should be lower than 0.2)
I am a bit more light sensitive than most people, though I wouldn't call myself a light sensitive person, but I feel their pain when it comes to fluorescent lightbulbs. Those things flicker enough for me to see it and they make my eyes blurry, cause mild dizziness with prolonged exposure and eventually lead to headaches. Lucky this only happens if they are close enough to me, so office buildings with fluorescent lights in the ceiling don't cause me any issues whatsoever. I've mainly had trouble in the reptile sections of pet stores and with fluorescent desk lamps. I do not own either of those things personally and do not go to locations with such lights.
It is completely fallacious to just assume that consumers invariably prefer brighter bulbs accross all potential bulb applications. Being this the case, the only possible reason to completely remove the upper end of the lifespan continuum from the market is to increase profits.
The argument is that a consumer could use a lower wattage lamp with higher efficiency to get the same amount of light (luminous flux [lm]) instead. But I don't think that manufacturers even provided that figure when lighting options like CFLs or LEDs weren't viable or widely used let alone marketed it to consumers.
Preach! I've been in and out of hospitals installing new led fixtures and retrofitting other older ones and staff have occasionally complained about the brightness
@@WakkowolfI have sensory issues and frequent migraines that exacerbate these issues and lights being too bright literally ends my career some days :') I have covered up a lot of my lights in ways that reduce the brightness.
@@patrick_test123, What people do not seem to comprehend about LED bulbs, is that the power section is woefully substandard, and dies before the LED's ever would.
It's so pathetically bad, that I'm looking at building a low power system (12v) in my shop and using a balancing supply to directly power all the LED's in the shop lights. (Bypass the internal power supplies) *I would argue that housing should be built this way as a standard since LED's are already the new standard. This also reduces cost of LED fixtures by a ton, since they don't require the power system at all. Maybe a fuse, but that's all.
@@SlickSimulacrum With LEDs I can find E27 bulbs from 400lm to 1400lm in 200lm steps. But with LEDs the planned obsolecnse is much clearer, more efficient drivers and lower LED current would last longer and be more efficiant. (But of course they would cost a bit more in the beginning)
Hi UE. It’s an important technical point that the tradeoff is power efficiency vs lifespan, not brightness vs lifespan.
I do agree with the economics point, this is just a technical point that can be easily confused, and I see people in the comments already confused about it. A shorter lifespan bulb will suck less power to pump out the same brightness as a longer lifespan bulb.
I think this misunderstanding is pretty core to this whole thing. Power efficiency vs Lifespan is an interesting problem. This isn’t to say the cartel wasn’t putting their whole body weight on the scales, just that focusing on brightness is a really distracting error.
Exactly, it's not actually purely about brightness. With a less efficient bulb, you will end up spending more on electricity to achieve the same amount of brightness. Given an expected price of electricity and wanted lumens, it would be possible to calculate the most economically efficient lifespan. I'm not saying the cartel did that, just that efficiency in the defined as lm/W is what is important.
I think this particular argument is adressed in the last part of the video, is it not?
@@ggrasten not fully. If you don't need the brightness from a 75W lamp. Why buy a long lasting 75W when you could get lika a 50W. Consuming less energy for the same brightness.
@@ggrasten ya as Manne says, a less bright bulb that consumes the same amount of power is not helpful, what you want is a bulb that consumes less power and produces less light, but then you have a lower lifespan again.
While technically true when talking lights as a whole, in this particular case brightness is a valid and accurate simplification.
The argument is about the motivations of the cartel in setting the standards of the same incadescent lights the way they did, which each manufacturer would have to enforce. Efficiency between different light bulb technologies was never at question, never used as an argument in either direction, which is why it isn't brought up. If manufacturer B could nake an incandescent light 10% more efficient than their competitor, they still had to make it last the same amount of hours anyway, which would still directly affect how bright that same bulb by the same company was. The companies don't pay your electric bill now or then, they didn't give a toss about efficiency untill that became a selling point, which comes much later.
funny thing is, you have to understand how degradation/failure in a product reliably works, if you want to go forward with planned obsolescence. Because else, you might introduce a new failure mechanism, that will let your device/product fail at any random time that might be hard to predict and therefor might entirely void the usage of your product in the first place.
Love it. Keep making more deep dives into niche topics, if you feel inclined.
A thought that just occurred to me, why would people switch their appliances and lights for new technology especially when they don't know how long it might last, having the ubiquity of some planned obsolescence in mind as well.
How weird am I that when I saw this video went up, my immediate thought was "finally, I will have the definite answer about planned obsolescence of light bulbs!"?
I love this back and forth. It is really a purely academic agreement. Everyone involved agrees on the general principle. It is just a question of whether this histoical situation from too long ago to be relevant is an example of the principle or not. Doesn't impact anything at all today, so the stakes are super low. Just purely interesting.
TBF CFLs truly suck and their claimed lifetimes are also really quite optimistic. The shift to LEDs being the new efficient kid on the block have had a bigger impact for loads of reasons.
You prefering dimmer lightbulb reminds me of a essay called In Praise of Shadows by Tanizaki Junichiro. Not related to economy in anyway though, so it might be considered as unlearning them.
Thanks for the Video! I still think TC has a point in that the common story is not nearly as clear-cut as it is usually presented. The efficiency argument is interesting as it could point towards both directions. IIrc, electricity suppliers were indirectly involved in the scheme as they would often gift light bulbs to consumers. They had an incentive to not overwhelm the grid and sell lots of electricity. I wonder if there are insights into which considerations went into their decisions and how usage changed after the switch.
He doesn't make that point, he essentially says no planned obsolesce occurred, in this case. Too much hubris. People get that way when they have a successful career.
@@peterc4082 The TC video is literally called "Longer-lasting light bulbs: it was complicated"
@@Hennue I watched that video a while ago. But in the clips that were cited here TC said that this was not a case of planned obsolescence without all the evidence to claim so.
I feel like the continuation of this Simpsons review was deeply needed
The one thing is say about the study involving is CFLs is CFLs were terrible. They are the light people paid attention to, if price was your motivator then they were great. If it wasnt and you wanted quality or speed or brightness of light then they were terrible. I remember people commenting on how bad they were when they were introduced and for how long they were around. How long they took to warm up and get to full light and how poor that light was even if it was technically bright.
My dad still has some going and they are genuinely awful.
While i agree with the general points, and think generally people don't know about lights, i think CFLs and this one study underestimates how unpopular they were (if you didnt mind how much money it cost to run lightbulbs) and how common knowledge of the poor performance was.
LEDs wholesale replaced them and incandescent bulbs in the market because fhey were cheaper and better and it was obvious when you used them they were on the whole superior to tungston or CFLs. Now a lot of that push was by large companies but the push back against LEDs and incandescent being banned (and there was some, mainly in America) was minimal. At least once they realised they had to filter and yellow the light.
I like TC, but there is a simple weakness in their argument that they seemed to have missed. If there is a tradeoff between brightness and longevity, one can make the light brighter by the magic of using 2 of them. 2 light bulbs are brighter than one. A lightbulb is a filament inside of a vacuum envelope. The filament is the bright part. One can make a bulb with 2, 3, 5 filaments, each running on the colder side for longevity, but together outputtng lots of light. Such a bulb would be more expensive than a single filament bulb, but not much more expensive since the glasswork would be essentially the same. This isn't difficult, it would not have required new technology. It is not correct to say that bright, long lasting bulbs could not have been made.
The argument is not the tradeoff between brightness and longevity (as Unlearning Economics says a couple of times); it is between EFFICIENCY and longevity.
You can have a lightbulb that produces the same amount of light by making it use more energy; as you suggest, add more filaments to make a lightbulb that uses twice or three times more energy to produce the same light. That is exactly what the cartel was against. They didn't want a company selling lightbulbs that lasted longer, where the tradeoff was that those lightbulbs consumed more energy for the same amount of light. Everyone understands the concept of longevity, and so it's easy to use it as marketing. Efficiency, however, it's more obscure and difficult to understand (for the average consumer in 1940...)
I love your videos and TC’s as well, so this was a treat. I’ve seen other folks talking about brightness vs power efficiency here as well, and I wanted to put a finer point on this and try to unpack TC’s perspective and the slight mismatch here.
As an economist you are thinking about the light bulb as a self-contained product, that emits some qualia that economic actors consume and turn into utility. You need light, buy light bulb, apply power, experience happiness. It’s consumed in discrete units of product-ness.
But TC is viewing the bulbs as components, purchased to assemble a system. The question of “how bright do you want the room” has *almost* nothing to do with the bulb as an individual object, and way more to do with the lighting solution - the system - that you are installing. You look at the room, select a desired brightness level, color temperature, etc, then purchase components to *assemble* to deliver that experience at an efficient price. If you want a super bright room you might get a half a dozen bulbs. If you care about evenness and glare you might sacrifice some brightness to a diffuser.
Thus the aesthetic preference “I want dimmer light” is not just a separate question but an entirely irrelevant dimension to the efficiency/lifespan tradeoff.
Of course actual human beings don’t experience things at either one of these extremes, our houses are not lit from a single bare bulb nor are we designing new novel bespoke holistic lighting systems every time we take a trip to the hardware store. But I think this is where the disconnect comes from, even though TC does talk about brightness in the context of efficiency, that’s just one dimension in the selection criteria for the bulb; not the determinative of the entire lighting outcome that you’re looking for.
Love the talk on inertia
What perplexes me is that the first light meter was invented in 1932, if their goal was measuring how bright were lightbulbs why didn't they switch to a direct measurement of brightness? It would also have been quicker to test that directly rather than letting a lightbulb on for 41 days straight to see if it would break
There's always unknowns. If you don't actually test, then you don't actually know.
These days, they plan to get around it I guess by making everything a service. Cars, computers, printers. Our mobile phones and consoles are already that way, except these are products where the service is integral. Less so for a printer. This process is part of a general erosion in traits of property title. Ah life as a propertyless serf here we come.
20:00 we had (low quality) blue and after a little while white LEDs in a lot of cheap gadgets (toys, cigarette lighters etc) for a few years before having them in lightbulbs, so yeah, most likely.
I remember I assembled an array of white LEDs collected out of empty lighters and used to light my room w/ it.
"we have actual equations!"
i'm gonna get a cricket bat and paint THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY on it to smack people when they talk about math being anything but a tool we made
I personally came away from TC's video with the message of "TC doesn't like that this case is treated as black and white", a sort of self-admitted nitpick response to a popular conception
I LOVE technology connections. I watched his video on this and my only thought the whole time was that he was absolutely correct, there are technical reasons in shortening the lifespan. But he never brought up customer choice. Which is the major factor for me with making this a plot to increase profit.
I think you’re absolutely correct that TC wanted to illuminate some of the more nuanced points
Excellent response.
22:20 another point, those more efficient lights usually used different sockets, meaning you would have to change the light fixture to use them, in most houses you dont choose what fixture comes with your house, the standard light bulb, the cheaper option for the builder come with house, not the most efficient.
7:32 that's that dry wit I always look forward to
just one small thing, i think itd be better to have units on those lifespan-brightness axis. maybe theres a more detailed version in the sources, i did not check. Still think itd be something easily implementable to have it directly in the video. That aside, thanks for the contribution, your work is great.
The Centennial Bulb is an uncommonh carbon filament bulb. Electrical resistance of carbon has a positive temperature coefficient. This means that some sort of spike in the voltage like when a switch is turned off will cause more heating which increases resistance which reduces current. The filament saves itself from destruction. I have one that was on my grandfathers back porch since before 1918. Anyway, an invalid example compared to later bulbs. The problem is carbon filaments are in a vacuum and over time the carbon plates the inner surface of the bulb and gets dimmer and dimmer. There is a sweet spot of lifetime and cost that gives the best experience for the buyers.
After carbon the bulbs use tungsten metal filament but it has the same problem with plating evaporated filament on the glass. It also is not self protecting which is why they often fail when the light is switched off or on. The answer was filling them with argon under pressure - which is why they make a popping sound when broken. The large heavy argon atoms tend to bounce the tungsten vapor back onto the filament preventing plating and thin spots that might burnout. Downside is they take more power because the argon is pulling heat away very rapidly. But they give good light. Also carbon was too delicate for many uses. I have not bought an incandescent in quite a while, but I recall they still have lives in the 1000 to 2500 hour range.
I can't see any need to shorten the lifetimes when they could have experimented with pricing and "Standard" versus "Long Life" bulbs. Wasn't this the Trust Busting and New Deal age? Maybe they borrowed some good union muscle to convince everyone to join in the stupidity. There was plenty of that available.
Planned obsolescence also means that when industrial society collapses, all our stuff will soon break, and we will not be able to make new ones. Consider what happens when you need air conditioners just to survive the high wet-bulb temp season where you live, and you still have power somehow, but your AC breaks. Or your shoes break, etc, etc.
There is almost no culture of repair in the West anymore. Not true of places like India, as far as I can tell.
How about your heaters? I don’t think humans want to go back to exclusively heating their homes via fire T_T
That’s the dumbest thing I have ever read OP
@@sunnohh why is it dumb?
I know that Tungsram factory in Hungary was the largest fluorescent and incandescent lamp factory in 50s and 60s in more than half of the Europe, and their lamps lasted for an eternity. I have fluorescent tubes in my collection from Tungsram, made in the 60s, that were in use for all their time being installed and they still work, even though the ends are super black. I have T12 fluorescent tubes from Hungary, made in 2008, the very last T12 tubes from Hungary and they still lasted morealess 8 to 10 years on normal use. So I am not sure what is the idea behind this, but Im pretty sure the cartel was only the thing that existed in early 50s then after that each factory did what they wanted. Philips made fluorescent tubes with quadruple coiled cathode filaments and especially the vintage tubes from 70s made in French Philips factory, lasted easily for 30 years with daily use. While Sylvania used in their fluorescent tubes very trashy stick cathodes with only single coiled construction and Sylvania tubes lasted about two years at most, and at the end, very last ones to leave the factory lasted no more than a year. EDIT: There also were Duro-Test and Luxor tubes that used cathode assemblies with two or even three filaments connected in parralel, each with slightly different resistance so each set would decay and use up evenly and such a lamp would last easily 50 years installed and left to run 24/7/365. And all these claims about the incandescent lamp being engineered to fail at 1000 hours of use is bogus trash :) Ya'll people think that somewhere in the basement of some lamp factory a few scientists rubbed their hands and giggled trying to invent a special filament that would know where the bulb is used and then when it ticked the last second of 1k hours it would spontaneously break? That is nonsense. All of this cartel stuff was made up, Im sure of it. Just like the bible, that was written by some crack addict many years ago and someone chose to believe that load of shit and created a religion out of it. Its the same with the cartel. If you would dive deeply into the physics of how the incandescent lamp works, how the tungsten metal kept constantly very close to its melting point in the tornado of convection inert gas wind inside the bulb sputters away its atoms into the bulb and gradually becomes weaker until it breaks, and how it is impossible to engineer the failure point of such a thing at some predetermined hour mark because the number of environmental caviots is just ridiculous, such as is the bulb gonna move when its in use? is the bulb gonna be used in cold or hot environment? is the feed voltage is 1 volt less or 1 volt more than what it was designed for? are there harmonics in the socket from the wall it is attached to? Is water dripping on the bulb while it runs? Is the inert gas pressure inside of it at the same pressure that it was in the light bulb number 1956487 that left the factory 10 minutes ago? Did the support wire in the envelope was tensioned the same as the light number 4789554624? Its ridiculous to think that this supposed "cartel" was a thing at all. It was all made up my people who had too much free time on their hands.
thanks for the video UE :)
i actually noticed that my local supermarket doesn't stock 100w equivalent led bulbs, presumably because it makes the heat hard to deal with without much more brightness, so the brightest ones are a bit less. And they used to say the led equiv. of 100w was 15w leds now it's 12-14, so idk if they changed that or it's increased efficiency. anyway, i think leds have become a bit dimmer and no-one really noticed or cared lol. might be totally off tho.
The packaging should say how many lumen they emit. Its probably efficiency not dimming. My 100 watt equivalent ELD bulb package states 1521 lumen 11.5 watt. If the shop where you buy sells both compare the lumens.
Thank you for the video :)
Well slam-dunked
even if single bulbs gain brightness from shorter lifespan, longer lifespan bulbs are still preferable when multiple bulbs can be used to make up the difference.
if the Phoebus Cartel conspired at all to reduce lifespan, regardless of brightness benefits, they still are less optimal than more longer lifespan bulbs.
it is only in compact environments where single bulbs need to be brighter, and therefore acceptably shorter lifespan makes sense. but your house lamp, could easily accomodate many lower brightness bulbs.
21:45 damn i died
With all due respect, later in this video the guy at TC points out that actually there are 3 variables, not 2. They are bulb life, bulb brightness, and the watts per lumen (aka brightness). So, now we need to consider the total cost of using bulbs for say 5000 hours. You'd need 5 1000-hour bulbs or 2 2500-hour bulbs. So, now we'd need the costs of the watts and the bulbs. My guess is that the 2 2500-hour bulbs cost less over the 5000 hours. [at the 12 min. mark]
On one hand, I think it is reasonable for TC to give a one-sided argument owing to the fact that the cartel has a very simple narrative surrounding it. On the other hand, a group with complete monopolistic control over an industry should be assumed to be working with profit in mind, even if there are also physics which could explain decisions.
Please for someone to explain me : energy efficient lightbulbs last longer but cost more to run for a given light level? How is that energy efficient? Obviously confused but big and fat and most probably hairy how?
A lot of electronics is very poorly designed. Heat sensitive components are placed in the hottest part of the power supply.
I would like to add to the conversation that no matter the intent or reasons, it definitely increased production and waste and therefore was a bad decision looking back.
I’m autistic and hate bright lights. It’s been a real challenge to find bulbs to use in my house that don’t hurt my eyes. Even the “soft light” warmest LED bulbs I can find at Lowe’s still seem too bright and too blue for me. Knowing that their brightness is also there to shorten their lifespan so I have to buy more fills me rage that I can’t really direct anywhere.
Maybe autistic brains are resistant to this “social inertia”.
Have you looked into the CRI on your lightbulbs? I have a friend who is very sensitive to that. If you’re not familiar with the term, it’s a measure of how truly “full spectrum” the light is. Bulbs with a low CRI have lots of light at a few wavelengths and none at others. High CRI bulbs have a much smoother, more even output across the spectrum. One of the many problems with the stupidly bright blue headlights that are popular now is that even though they are technically brighter, they’re actually harder to see by, because they have tons of blue light but not much else. The yellower bulbs are closer to full spectrum so even if they’re dimmer you can actually see better with them.
26:01 "inertia also restrains people from replacing older, less energy-efficient appliances which are still functioning through new appliances with higher technological and economical efficiency."
not sure I agree... maybe because I'm poor i only know other poor people, but nobody has money to replace a perfectly functional thing with a brand new expensive model just because it has "higher technological and economical efficiency."
even if they did, so we're just going to further fill the landfills with tech trash and create more waste because new things are slightly more efficient, that's not inertia that would be stupidity...
I think he means buying a new device that will save you money over its life. Replacing my gas furnace with a heat pump would start saving me money in about 5 years, but has a high upfront cost that I cant meet. Beyond ‘inertia’, us poors may not have the option, even if we can do the math.
One of the many, many reasons that it’s expensive to be poor.
@@michaelruiz4010 completely agree, but there are other things like efficient washers which cost $1000+ and will save you ~500 dollars over the life of the machine OR you can buy a cheap one for $500 and mechanically it will last just as long if not longer because it has fewer electronics to go wrong and so they cost the same essentially, only one has a higher upfront cost.
There's no reason to throw out the working one and you only break even if yours breaks and you buy the efficient one.
21:57 LIFE IS HARD OK
The centennial bulb is in Livermore CA not Fremont .
It seems like this debate is kind of ignoring the fundamental physics here. The manufacturer controlls the thickness and the length of the filament. There are TWO degrees of freedom, not one. Unless there's some sneaky math going on where things cancel out, they should just be able to make a long AND thick filament to get a bright, long-lived bulb.
Kinda. Length and thickness both impact resistance of the filament which in turn determines the amount of current the filament sees for a given voltage. My understanding is that a long thick wire will be a good heater and a dim light source.
My question is: all things considered can we make modern, "centennial bulbs" that are properly bright? I know about LEDs and things but could you use, "modern technology" to create a much better bulbs? I'd pay like 100$ for everlasting nice lights for all my rooms even if just for the novelty and to, "fight the power."
Well yes we can. Take an led run it at an undervoltage, keep it nice and cool and it will run for dekades and more.
You don't need citations when the physics of black body radiation is well established and dead obvious, higher temperature = more radiation in visible spectrum = shorter life.
Only people who don't understand physics waste time arguing over irrelevant details like citations
Funny of you to show a clip where he specifically state he is not 100% saying no wrong doing was done, yet you just sit there and say “hey I’m going to ignore I saw that”
You don't speak German, but Krajewski is a Polish surname. KR-U-YEV-SKEE.
The argument is not the tradeoff between brightness and longevity; it is between EFFICIENCY and longevity.
economics 101 - competition will absorb excess returns. if the a price price is "artificially high", will correct, unless competition is blocked, or never was excess return and the price was never "artificially high".
I would clearly say that 1000h is a very good lifetime for a incandescent bulb. Maybe they should even last only 750h or so. If the bulb should last only a few hundred hours longer, you are quickly using much, much more power. The CRI (light quality) becomes also worse.
33:07
1. Even if they were practicing monopoly wouldn't mean they were also practicing planned obsolescence.
2 & 3. Asserting that corporations were seeking to increase profits is a truism.
6. Because brighter, faster burning bulbs were more energy efficient it would have been rational for consumers to buy lower watt brighter and faster burning bulb if they wanted dimmer light than an older style longer lasting bulb. The fact that it didn't occur to you was frustrating.
This is a really dumb video.
It is really not a question of getting a dimmer or brighter bulb, but lumens per watt and required wattage to do the job.
A 60w 5000 hour bulb only puts out as much light as a 40w 1000 hour. A 100w 5000hr puts out as much light as a 75w 1000h.
If the lamp is dimmer, need a higher wattage to get the desired light output and people select the wattage that works.
A regular incandescent bulb was very cheap and not materially intensive to make - less resources used and less waste produced using a 40w 1000hr bulb and changing is far more frequently than a 60w 5000 hour bulb. The waste includes the fossil or nuclear fuel used, the waste is dumped into the atmosphere for fossil fuel for nuclear has to be store indefinitely.
If the manufacturers made more profit this way - so be it, worth it for the energy savings.
Longer life lightbulbs were available, just not the standard.
You should be making videos about planned obsolescence smart phones instead with their sealed in batteries and dropping operating system support for older phones. or how about apple computers and their soldered in ssds and ram?
This is exactly why I stopped watching TC's videos. For my taste he's too often doing "not all cartels/companies" kind of arguments about tech and engineering topics.
There is no way you oucld get me to watch a technology connections video. I appreciate in depth videos on topics, but like 45 minutes on microwave defrost buttons is just not it for me. his videos make me want to claw my eyes out.
2:21 “cartel… Capitalist conspiracy “that’s actually impossible. Because the stronger the cartel becomes, the stronger the incentive to break out of the cartel becomes. Therefore, cartels are mathematically, unstable constructs. Therefore, there are no cartels in real life. Glad I could help you.😂😂😂
I'm sure glad cartels can't enforce membership by corrupt legislation, or with economic or physical violence! That would be awful!
classic orthodox economist, claiming real empirical examples aren't real because they contradict the theoretical model LMAO
imagine being retired and spending your time trolling in youtube comment sections and hatewatching videos instead of enjoying the last few years you have left 😂😂😂
Oh shit, somebody should inform the anti-trust people about this. Seems like their work was never required and they just didn't notice \s
Honestly thought your comment was sarcastic, didn't realize you were actually serious.
planned obsolescence is a conspiracy theory. There. saved you watching this dumb video.😂😂😂
Ok lib
It isn’t. We do it at my company. And surely we’re not the only ones who do a thing to make more profit.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, and in some instances an actual conspiracy. My family (which is a big family, my parents have 9 siblings combined) has some appliances that are around 40 years old and still work, while newer ones are rarely older than 20, most of them are just 5-10 years old. What happened with the ones that are older than 20 but newer than 30? They were basically all trash.
@@andybaldmansame here
Ok, boomer.
"The light that burns twice as brightly burns half as long; and you Unlearning Economics have burned oh so very brightly "