Log in

Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004, 01:11 pm

I just made a remark that "they don't make em' the way they used to" while changing a light bulb. I never remember having as many bulbs burn out on me as the last several months. I wouldn't rule out voltage irregularities, but I also notice that they all seem to burn out at around the same time. Some of them I leave on constantly, and don't often seem to need replacement, but the ones that I turn on and off all time all go out within a few days of each other.

I guarantee that with all of our equipment and gadgets, the #1 thing that damages them the most is turning them on and off. And light bulbs operate on the principle of supplying a high amount of energy to a filament that is operating above its recommended tolerances within a vacuum, and causing a chemical reaction that causes intense energy displacement that is then diffused as what we know as light. It's a high risk proposition that requires demanding specs, and in today's consumer-driven economy, the market is so competitive for the low-end light bulbs that they know they could basically shit in the box, and we would buy it as long as it was the cheapest and if it looked like a lightbulb.

My question, is should I start buying the name brand bulbs? I already decided that I will never save money on shoes or toilet paper, and I wonder if it is a good decision to add light bulbs to the list?


Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004 08:16 pm (UTC)

I make it principle to buy products based on quality over quantity. This is not to say I waste money on name brands that have an identical generic, but finding a generic that is comparable in quality to its name brand equivalent takes time and patience, and in a market of cut-throat competition, cannot always be found.

I've found generic light bulbs to be a complete waste of money. If you can get them to last ¼ the time of a name-brand you're doing well (some generics are better than others, however figuring out which ones are which can oftentimes be an effort in futility).

In my home, for all of the light bulbs that are (a)used regularly and (b)aren't controlled by a rheostat, I have opted for the new florescent type bulbs. Since making the move in early 2002, I have never had to replace a single bulb and the energy use is considerably less by comparison. It's a larger initial investment, but I haven't bought a light bulb in over two years and running.

Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004 08:37 pm (UTC)

I'm kind of leaning that way myself. I try to be frugal on things that are good substitutes (food, most notably), but I'm having to replace bulb after bulb after bulb these days...it is pissing me off.

Thanks for the wisdom.

Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004 09:02 pm (UTC)

Fluorescent = *bloargh* = bad mood.

Unless you get the full spectrum ones. Worth the premium.

Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004 09:27 pm (UTC)

I'm sold on the soft fourescents - plus they're filtered by a lamp shade so the light is actually quite pleasant.

There's no Joe Versus the Volcano flourescents here.

Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004 09:29 pm (UTC)

Apparently I reverted to some sort of British lexicon there.


Tue, Nov. 23rd, 2004 09:33 pm (UTC)


Wed, Nov. 24th, 2004 07:47 am (UTC)

*wonders why florescent went through Spell-check® 2000™*

*consults The New Lexicon Websters® Dictionary of the English Language*

florescence (flourés'ns) n. the state or period of being in flower || a bursting into flower flourescent adj. [fr. L. flourescere, to flower]


Wed, Nov. 24th, 2004 07:49 am (UTC)

Goddammit! I fucked that up too...



I should stay away from the computer at 3:00am.

Wed, Nov. 24th, 2004 04:44 pm (UTC)

Spell-Check® 2000™ SUCKS!

I doesn't understand my native *pop* *click* *NGUBA*