An interesting article in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine that profiles a front runner for the U.S Government sponsored ‘L Prize’. It’s worth a read if you are at all curious about such things. While LEDs seem to be the most promising incandescent replacement, the article touches on some of the obstacles in manufacturing and engineering aspects of producing a viable candidate. It also addresses some of the reasons why incandescent bulbs are so much more pleasing to use, the primal and hardwired attraction to a light bulb that more closely reproduces the same spectrum of light as that of the African savanna.
I know that our customers are most drawn to the lamps and fixtures that we’ve outfitted with reproduction Edison bulbs, which look beautiful but are very inefficient. In noting that I should point out that the illustration for the Times’ article does not afford a comparable glow to the incandescent as it does to the LED, making the standard bulb look dim and sickly in comparison. Which is okay but worth noting. Perhaps the editors tried side by side images at a similar brightness and realized that the incandescent still managed to steal the gaze of the reader. Preferences as deep as evolutionary memories are hard to steer. I suppose that trying to arrest the damage we’re doing to the environment is accomplished largely through actions that run counter to our natural impulses. A glowing filament is pretty like a campfire.
- 30 watts of pure Earth-killing bliss.










