Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
World's Oldest Light Bulb Still Burning After 110 Years — Parallax Forums

World's Oldest Light Bulb Still Burning After 110 Years

edited 2011-06-19 20:25 in General Discussion
World's Oldest Light Bulb Still Burning After 110 Years
A light bulb hanging in the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department has been burning steadily for exactly 110 years, according the Centennial Bulb website. Since the "Centennial Bulb" was first turned on, the stock market crashed and was reborn, the nuclear age began, two World Wars were fought, cars and planes were developed … and through it all the bulb kept burning.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/18/worlds-oldest-light-bulb-still-burning-after-110-years/?test=faces

It is a shame that I have to go out and buy a bulb every year or two and this one was made to last for 110 years or more.

Here is the web cam of the bulb:

http://www.centennialbulb.org/photos.htm

Comments

  • RavenkallenRavenkallen Posts: 1,057
    edited 2011-06-18 19:49
    That is really neat. I can't believe it lasted for a 100+ years.. Wow, couldn't get a CFL to last that long:)
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2011-06-18 21:38
    That is really neat. I can't believe it lasted for a 100+ years.. Wow, couldn't get a CFL to last that long:)

    Too true, but CFL's last a lot longer than even the average "long life" incandescent bulb of today does, and uses 75 to 80 percent less electricity.
  • RavenkallenRavenkallen Posts: 1,057
    edited 2011-06-18 22:45
    @Kwinn... I don't know. I have always seemed to have bad luck with CFL's for some reason. I am not a big fan of CFL's over all though. They have dangerous amounts of mercury and the EPA actually recommends "evacuating" a small area around the bulb should one break, you can't dim them and they are still pretty pricey compared to incandescent bulbs AND i don't know if anybody else has this problem, but it seems like it takes them a while to get to full brightness? Maybe it's just me?... But they are efficient when they do work:). I think LED's hold the biggest promise!
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2011-06-18 23:23
    That bulb's filament is not glowing white. If a modern incandescent bulb were run at a low enough voltage to match that filament's color temperature, it would would last a whole lot longer than normal.

    I have a decorative lantern in my kitchen that serves as a nightlight. It's uses a 25W long-skinny-filament piano-light bulb and is on all the time. The bulbs were burning out at the rate of one every 60 days -- until I added a series rectifier to the fixture to reduce the voltage. 'Haven't burned out a bulb since.

    -Phil
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2011-06-18 23:44
    @Kwinn... I don't know. I have always seemed to have bad luck with CFL's for some reason. I am not a big fan of CFL's over all though. They have dangerous amounts of mercury and the EPA actually recommends "evacuating" a small area around the bulb should one break, you can't dim them and they are still pretty pricey compared to incandescent bulbs AND i don't know if anybody else has this problem, but it seems like it takes them a while to get to full brightness? Maybe it's just me?... But they are efficient when they do work:). I think LED's hold the biggest promise!

    I agree that leds are the wave of the future and I am replacing CFL's with them as much as possible. They do contain mercury so I am careful and dispose of them at the hazardous waste site. It is also true that they are pricier and do take a few minutes to reach maximum brightness, but I feel that the saving on my electricity consumption and resulting environmental benefits compensate for that. In my case I have found that CFL's last 4 - 5 years in heavy use compared to a few months for incandescent bulbs. On top of that my electricity use has gone down significantly.
  • HollyMinkowskiHollyMinkowski Posts: 1,398
    edited 2011-06-19 00:42
    LEDs are going to take over I think, and soon.
    Too many problems with cfl and the mercury thing is not good.

    They use a lot of LED panels now for stage and screen lighting.
    The color temp/brightness is easily controlled...probably by
    a uC.

    Also similar panels are used as grow lights for plants...these emit
    only the wavelengths needed by the plants and are therefore very
    energy thrifty.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYewLs7arGG_Xz_WyVKt8IEBs9qq3ujyNk-xOnpZIUDaI9Q8IA

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRPvff884YU4ZUg7ONrOAg1BZOWqvv9qLL8yASeBI4fw2zfbU_qw
  • doggiedocdoggiedoc Posts: 2,245
    edited 2011-06-19 04:23
    110 years is long time for a filament even at a low glow. I'm with Holy, hope to see LEDs take over, although I have been migrating to CFL in the interim. (Mercury does scare me a little. What was the name of the movie in the 80s where all the toxic waste created the monsters that killed everyone? .... I can't think of it right now, but it was scary!)

    Paul

    EDIT: Google rocks!
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079758/
  • localrogerlocalroger Posts: 3,452
    edited 2011-06-19 06:03
    The amount of mercury in a CFL is a whopping -- wait for it -- FOUR MILLIGRAMS.

    http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

    I am positively shaking in my shoes. It is a factor with bazillions of them leaching out in landfills, so properly recycling them is good, but to be in any way personally worried about the mercury in a CFL is completely irrational. As problems go, discarded cell phones and computers make CFL's look like a tick on the back of a rampaging Tyrannosaurus Rex.
  • doggiedocdoggiedoc Posts: 2,245
    edited 2011-06-19 06:42
    good point there localroger
  • RDL2004RDL2004 Posts: 2,554
    edited 2011-06-19 07:58
    I visited Thomas Edison's winter home in Ft. Meyers back in the 90s. They had some of his bulbs in a chandelier that had been burning over 50 years. Henry Ford was his neighbor, it's a really neat place to visit if you're ever in that part of the country.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2011-06-19 08:34
    I've been wondering what Thomas Edison would think of LEDs. After all, the light bulb was the iconic brilliant idea. You can get 220VAC and 440VAC rated incandescent light bulbs that will last far longer on 110VAC. 220VAC fluorescent don't do well on 110VAC. At the current pace, I don't think I could take another 100 years of technologically innovation. I am beginning to envy H.D. Thoreau.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2011-06-19 09:21
    @Holly, you continue to amaze me. Where do you find the time to dig up all the bargains and information you present in the forum?

    @localroger, I agree completely with both of your points. I am not too concerned with the tiny amount of mercury in the cfl's I have at home, but I do store any burned out cfl's and take them to the hazardous waste disposal site rather than throw them in with the regular garbage.

    @All, one of the reasons those old bulbs last so much longer is that both the filament and the glass was considerably thicker than in todays bulbs. Far less likely to have air leak in and the filament to break. Also less light per watt of electricity of course.
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,129
    edited 2011-06-19 15:32
    Wow so much interest in light bulbs.

    I have a giant 120V 1250W Mazda Air Floodlamp. I hooked it up once and about blinded myself.
    If anyone wants it I'll bring it to UPENE this year.

    Bean
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2011-06-19 20:15
    kwinn wrote:
    one of the reasons those old bulbs last so much longer is that both the filament and the glass was considerably thicker than in todays bulbs.
    Also, did the old bulbs use a completely evacuated globe? I believe that current bulbs contain a mixture of noble gasses (argon and ... ?), probably at low pressure, but certainly not a vacuum.

    -Phil
  • edited 2011-06-19 20:25
    Also, did the old bulbs use a completely evacuated globe? I believe that current bulbs contain a mixture of noble gasses (argon and ... ?), probably at low pressure, but certainly not a vacuum.

    -Phil

    I would think there is a difference in the density of the glass material that makes up the outside bulb. Old time manufacturers weren't cheap back then. They weren't trying to save money because they actually wanted to give people a good product that would last. I'm just wondering how much it would cost to make the same bulb today.
Sign In or Register to comment.