The program is showing how come a lightbulb only works for 1000 hours in 2012 when in 1920's they worked for 2500 hours. Or why your printer stops working withoug warning. Or the I-pod battery stops working.
+ what do we do to our waste? And why?
A 50 minute documentary that is both sad and provoking. It is not gonna change your life. But maybe what you do with it.
Here you should be able to see it too
Maybe you'll enjoy it too.
1920’s bulbs had lower working temperature and had more orange light. That is why they can work longer.
I guess things aren’t made to last anymore because its been drilled into us to want the latest phone etc, so we want to constantly upgrade.
I saw a programme showing all our electrical waste in some 3rd world country where kids lived on the rubbish dumps and dismantled old computers, burning the plastic off cables and parts to reach the copper within.
Very good fine! I enjoyed it. Here’s another upload of it.
I downloaded this about 6 months ago, it was pretty informative to watch.
Its not just about light bulbs, its about everything designed to fail.
Its avalible here if you have a torrent downloaded
I’ve seen this before too and believe most of it is true. Items these days are either designed to physically fail after a set period, or marketing and advertising is used to make you want to get a replacement for an item that is working fine.
And were far less eficent meaning you spent all ya bucks on electricity instead of light bulbs, some of these shows are BS about some facts.
planned obsolescence has been a well-known and effective instrument for manufacturers of all kind.
Now, I am really asking myself whether or not Cree’s lifespan estimates of the ubiquitous 50K hours are based on planned obsolescence as well. Still, fifty-thousand hours is still a pretty long time… maybe I should worry about my tax declaration instead.
Yes things may fail after a set time, but overall it’s generally not that much more expensive for you, and may in fact be cheaper due to advances in efficiency etc. An incandesent bulb that lasts 2500 hours may cost you a dollar or 2, if they were still made, while an equivalent quality LED light costs $50, however by lasting 50,000 hours and using <1/6th the electricity it will cost much less over 50,000 hours than an incandesent will end up costing you.
The tin foil hat has merit ..depending on how many watts and what frequency he's broadcasting on ......is that a swing set in the background or an inverted V di-pole ...maybe he's cooking the soft tissue of those smiling folks in the background .
You need to remember that all of these documentaries are made to sell and if they don't make money they aren't viewed and aren't successful so a few exaggerations or two or flawed logic , or a survey asked a certain was skews statistics in favor of the point they are trying to make .So like people have said a new very efficient led uses (X) times less power and puts out better more useful light ..='s a net gain .
I'd rather watch sci -fi... than documentaries that are peddling fear , full of blatant lies ,hypotheticals and false assumptions.
* not talkin about this^ doc. since I haven't viewed it yet ..
Watched this doc about 2 months ago. I’d rate it a solid 9/10.
Ehm.
I might make a note, that it is still possible to purchase for example a 8000h incan bulb.
No, it will not make quite as much lumens, as one with shorter life span and yes, it will cost more.
20Kh bulb: http://www.amazon.com/Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Hours-Frosted/dp/B000273T22
But yes, the basic idea of this document still stands : more they brake, the more you sell.
But still: people have a tendecy to buy the cheapest product that offers most feats.
…that might have a slight influence on what factories are pushing out of their lines.
Does it sound familiar?? :bigsmile:
Well, it would seem fairly simple to accept this approach. Capitalism needs constant growth, in order to fuel itself. You have to continually find new markets and then make sure that those markets will buy replacements. You do that by either selling them that newer is better, or simple make sure what you make does not last forever. The problem with that is, you have to do a mix of both. If the consumer finds your product failing too soon, they may switch to a different brand. So you have to be able to figure out the lifespan compared to how long it will take for the consumer to get to want a newer model, or reach the point where they feel it served it's life span. Or.... you become the only one making it, but any more that's a joke, for 100 others will copy it before you sell your first one.
I was in manufacturing for 26+ years and never did I find a company practicing planned obsolescence. Not one company in 26+ years. What most companies wanted, was to make a product that was as cheap as possible and still meet their minimum requirements. It was all about manufacturing costs, not planned obsolescence.
I think too many people feel that everyone else is too devious, when the truth is much simpler than that.
Thinner tungsten gives off more light than a heavy wire and it can only take so many heating and cooling cycles before it breaks. Edison's light bulbs were dim as hell and used heavy filament. No surprise they lasted longer. No conspiracy there, just physics.
Let’s not buy more flashlights than we need…
Its not a conspiracy, its an acknowledged business plan, a company makes a product as cheaply and at just the quality level required to generate repeat business without scaring away customers to another brand. Wikipedia has a good article.
As for the light bulb life, incandescent lights last longer if underdriven, you can under drive with less lumens/watt for longer life, or you can overdrive for more lumens.watt but less life. Its physics, and the only way to bypass it is with new technology such as fluorescent or LED.
If there were a conspiracy then the government would be looking to ban more efficient LEDs and CFLS not less efficient and higher profit incandescents.
My point was simply a film maker is selling a product too and honesty isn't necessarily his primary concern ..
Sensationalism sells and they know it .I have friends who watch all these PBS documentaries on Jesus and then come and ask me questions and I realize the film maker gains a greater interest if he presents many more and sometimes obscure hypothetical as possibilities instead of just seeking the truth .
That is not to say that all documentaries are like that .I think the earlier definition of a documentary was impartial /fair and one that exposed or presented a truth .. Now days it seems sensationalism or odd conflicting ideas are what gets noticed, talked about and therefore sells. Expecting a film maker to be moral or ethical is probably naive . They are covered by being able to say ... it's art, entertainment or just to make people think ...
I think the news has evolved in the same way .
The definition of what a documentary is, has just changed.
Heretic! Burn him…. :bigsmile:
with a flashlight and magnifying glass 