Jump to content

Talk:Electric light

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Microwave pumped"[edit]

Moved from list of Electric light technologies in that article:

  • microwave pumped [?]

(Some lasers are pumped with electromagnetic radiation, and there are blue-sky proposals for beaming microwaves as a means of power distribution. This could have something to do with either of those.)

The line went from

Microwave pumped

to the form above in its first year, and has seen no further change in over 9 months. Moving it here does no harm, since it conveys no information and since it is not about a currently practical technology; it helps by dispelling both confusion, and readers' anxiety that they may be ignorant.

If someone wants to write or find even a stub article on the subject, that would give it some context, the line may be the start of something deserving space in the article. --Jerzy 23:11, 2003 Dec 9 (UTC)

Whatever is this supposed to mean?[edit]

"The total amount of artificial light is sufficient for cities to be easily visible at night from the air, and from space. This wasted light should not be confused with the light pollution that burdens astronomers and others, although it is the source of it." It is the cause of light pollution — so how can it be further confused with it? Njál 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It took me quite some time to find what it means to have higher than 100% efficiency in the table, should there be more information about that in this article or at least linked to the correct portion of the efficiency article so it is easier to understand? MythSearchertalk 06:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus building[edit]

Did only ONE editor find the article title ambiguous? Usually we discuss moves. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC) One song by a rock band, and one poetry collection, needs disambiguation? forsooth. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like this was a good-faith move to make room for a page (Electric Light (poetry)) created by the mover a day or so ago. I propose we move the current Electric light to Electric light (disambiguation) and move the obviously primary topic back, with a hatnote to the disambig. (It may also be worth pointing this redirect to the new disambig page, since there are now two Electric capital-L Light articles.) --JaGatalk 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No history?[edit]

Are you kidding? No History section on the article on Electric Light? I know there's one on the article on the lightbulb, but cmon. Gaiacarra (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamp life expectancy[edit]

It is a complete myth that the life of a filament lamp is shortened due to frequent power cycling. Contrast the compact fluoresent lamp where the 10,000 hour life assumes the lamp is operated under laboratory conditions. Frequent switching vastly shortens the life, often to less than the 1000 hour life of the filament bulb it usually replaces. (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the filament is cold, its resistance is lower, therefore a higher flows through it (until it has heated up to normal operating temperature). So during that brief moment, the power and therefore the stress on the filament is higher. That in turn makes premature failure more likely. Noggo (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the filament never gets hotter than it does when at its operating temperature. Lots of filament bulbs are used in applications where they flash and their lives are no shorter than similar bulbs that do not flash. An obvious pair of applications is the flashing indicators and the brake light of a car (often the same type of bulb). The flashing indicator bulbs seldom have a shorter life than the brake light and will often outlast them. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do the sources say? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to claim that flashing lamps shorten their life, then a source is exactly what is required. As it is uncited, someone has tagged the claim as dubious for discussion here (and indeed kicked off the discussion - but failed to link it back to the tag). You had no right to remove the tag without providing a supporting reference (per WP:BURDEN).
Also: my apologies - I had not noticed that I had also reverted a constructive edit. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you were blushing about that sort of thing, you'd have permanently burst facial capillaries. Kane and Sell in the book "Revolution in Lamps: 50 Years of Progress" say on Page 14 that incandescent lamps often fail at switch on because of high inrush current not allowing the temperature of the filament to equalize - if the hot spot temperature overshoots and hits the melting point of tungsten, the filament fails. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the claim, by implication, is being used to support other claims in the rest of the paragraph which at one point states, "Rooms with frequent switching (bathroom, bedrooms, etc.) can expect much shorter lamp life than what is printed on the box." Whilst I agree that the most likely time for a lamp to fail is when it is switched on, that premise alone does not support other claims made in the paragraph and there is still no evidence that frequent switching significantly shortens the lamp life. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtshymanski: On rethinking your above post: It is right and proper that Wikipedia has as many references to support articles as possible. It therefore occurs to me, that you should add your reference above in place of the {{dubious}} tag in its current location. However, as the rest of the paragraph is still in contention then, unless your reference specifically addresses the points, the {{dubious}} tag should be reinstated against the claims that are still unreferenced - and which this discussion is really addressing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulb shapes?[edit]

I don't see any pages that enumerate the variety of standard bulb shapes/form-factors. Outside of Wikipedia, other web resources are confusing. In other words as a new home-owner, I've been left scratching my head about the difference between a PAR and a BR and an R. There are pages like this but a lack of photos and of dimensions and spelled-out acronyms make them useless in exactly identifying a bulb. Where should such info go? This page? A new page? Related pages include A-series light bulb, which is limited in scope, and Parabolic aluminized reflector light, which is restricted to theater lighting. Also: Multifaceted reflector.

If I can't find a high-level page for this topic, I'll Be Bold. It's been years since I created a new page, much less on a non-esoteric topic. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Incandescent light bulb#Bulb shapes.--Srleffler (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sensitivity to fluorescent lights[edit]

This should be mentioned on the page. Some people are sensitive to the high-speed flicker of fluorescent lights, which most of us don't notice, and can be subject to seizures brought on by them. I know at least one such person, and they are seriously concerned over the legislated and economically pushed phasing-out of incandescent lights in favor of compact or traditional fluorescents. --Thnidu (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Thnidu (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to a reliable source would be needed; personal anecdotes are not sufficient. --Srleffler (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2019[edit]

Please add the inventor of the light bulb. thank you. 2600:1700:ECB0:9D30:89D7:5AC9:592F:E73E (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019[edit]

I believe that talking about the history of ELECTRIC LIGHT without mentioning Edison's contribution is a huge mistake. (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --MrClog (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: I added a mention of Edison in the paragraph on early history. You may be interested in the article Incandescent light bulb, which has a much fuller exposition of the history of this technology.--Srleffler (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove circuit symbols section[edit]

@Srleffler:, @זור987:, @Gusfriend:, @Wtshymanski: The "Circuit symbols" section is not really deserving of a main section. It has some merit but not fit into any of the other sections. With the addition of the "Electronic symbol" section of the new infobox, I think the "Circuit symbols" section should be removed. This will allow editors and readers to have greater focus on the cultural symbolism section, which should be expanded, and the history section, which could use some restructuring – Kjerish (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electric lightElectric lamp – Article is about a lamp (the device), not about light (the phenomenon); significant source of confusion. Kehkou (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Kehkou (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. That doesn't really make sense. To the extent that one can talk about a phenomenon of "electric light", it would be just the light that is produced by the device, an electric light. That phenomenon would be correctly covered in this article. You assert that this is a "significant source of confusion", but you haven't really given any evidence of that nor said anything that makes me think that you are even remotely likely to be correct.
On the other hand, confusion over electric light (the device) and electric light (the phenomenon) is nothing compared to confusion over electric lamp (the thing that sits on a table) and electric lamp (the element that produces light). In much of the English-speaking world, it is not typical to refer to a light bulb as a "lamp", and using that term for it is genuinely confusing.--Srleffler (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Light" is the 'stuff' that comes out of a lamp; the 'stuff' you "turn on".
A "lamp" is any device intended to produce light and can be electric, gas, etc., and not necessarily visible (i.e., infrared lamp). Such devices produce electric light, gas light, candle light, etc.
The device that holds the lamp (such as a table lamp) is called a "luminaire" or "fixture".
Hope that clears it up. I live in the English-speaking USA, and very regularly refer to them as "lamps". I've seen the individual LEDs in an LED lamp refered to as "wicks", but that's just silly. Kehkou (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close The consensus is quite clear; please close this request.

Incidentally, "light" is also a device used to start a fire, the act of using said device, the opposite of heavy, and a lesser than normal amount or magnitude.Kehkou (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carariney (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]