# Mazda lamps



## RICK BOYD (Mar 10, 2008)

old ads I found


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

I wonder what Thomas Edison would say if he knew the government was banning his light bulb and replacing it with a product made in China.. :blink:


----------



## Malaking_TT (Dec 17, 2010)

B4T said:


> I wonder what Thomas Edison would say if he knew the government was banning his light bulb and replacing it with a product made in China.. :blink:



Think of all the work we're gonna get changing out dimmers


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Malaking_TT said:


> Think of all the work we're gonna get changing out dimmers


 And all the cfl's made for dimming....:laughing:


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

B4T said:


> I wonder what Thomas Edison would say if he knew the government was banning his light bulb and replacing it with a product made in China.. :blink:


If he were alive, Thomas Edison would be working LED R & D.
Conventional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs produce about *17 lumens per watt.*
Compact fluorescent bulbs produce about *62.5 lumens per watt*, about four times the amount of light that incandescent lamps produce on a watt-for-watt basis, and they last ten times as long.
DURHAM, N.C., May 10, 2010 — Cree, Inc., a market leader in LED lighting, announces a new LED-based troffer that delivers more than *100 lumens per Watt* fixture efficacy, the first indoor fixture known to deliver this level of performance.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

The Lightman said:


> If he were alive, Thomas Edison would be working LED R & D.
> Conventional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs produce about *17 lumens per watt.*
> Compact fluorescent bulbs produce about *62.5 lumens per watt*, about four times the amount of light that incandescent lamps produce on a watt-for-watt basis, and they last ten times as long.
> DURHAM, N.C., May 10, 2010 — Cree, Inc., a market leader in LED lighting, announces a new LED-based troffer that delivers more than *100 lumens per Watt* fixture efficacy, the first indoor fixture known to deliver this level of performance.


All that sounds great but a basic (100) watt A lamp is $.39 cents and a (23) watt CFL is $3.50.. 

A lamp.. (2000) hours... CFL (10,000) hours.. 

Figure in the energy saved and difference in cost and I bet you come out even when all the dust settles..


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

The Lightman said:


> If he were alive, Thomas Edison would be working LED R & D.
> Conventional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs produce about *17 lumens per watt.*
> Compact fluorescent bulbs produce about *62.5 lumens per watt*, about four times the amount of light that incandescent lamps produce on a watt-for-watt basis, and they last ten times as long.
> DURHAM, N.C., May 10, 2010 — Cree, Inc., a market leader in LED lighting, announces a new LED-based troffer that delivers more than *100 lumens per Watt* fixture efficacy, the first indoor fixture known to deliver this level of performance.


*The History of the Light Bulb – An Electric Dawn*

Thu, 09/11/2008 - 06:33 — Matt Jacks Who invented the light bulb then? An easy enough question to answer you might think. After all, every American schoolboy (and girl) surely knows that the great American scientific genius and inventor, Thomas Alva Edison invented the light bulb in 1879. He of the near incredible 1300 inventions and patents. There’s a difference there; invention and patent. He did hold the patent and he did invent his own light bulb, and did indeed make it into a commercially viable and successful working invention by extensive research and development on original ideas, but he did not invent the light bulb. Instead, he bought the patents from those who did. 
*Early beginnings*

Man-made electrical lighting itself began in circa 1810 when a chemist in England called Humphrey Davy (who also invented the miner’s safety lamp, known as the Davy lamp) invented the arc light. This worked by connecting a battery (itself invented in 1800 by Italian physicist Count Alessandro Volta, with the word volts being a derivative of his name) to two wires, and attaching the other ends of the wires to a strip of charcoal. The charcoal (which is a form of carbon remember) became electrically charged and began to glow, with arcs of electricity in the air surrounding it. 
Then in 1820 Warren De La Rue placed a coil made of platinum into an empty tube and allowed an electric current to pass through to form the first known proto-light bulb. This lit up well enough but the problem was that the chosen material for the coil, platinum was and still is extremely expensive to obtain, making the design a non-starter for commercialization. 
*Finding the filament*

The ideas for filaments (in this case, very fine wires) producing light, was then worked on for years by numerous scientists around the globe. This modern word comes from the Latin ‘filare’ which means ‘to spin’. The theory behind this change of tack in research was developed by James Prescott Joule, an English physicist who stated that if an electric current was passed through a resistant conductor, (the filament), this would itself glow hot with a good amount of the thermal energy produced turning to luminous, or light-giving, energy. 
The prize would be great, but so were the problems. The electric lamp had to be first safe, cost-effective, and then practical; as small as possible in size allowing for easy transportation and installation, and it had to light up the surrounding area well, and not burn out after only a short time. This last problem was the main obstacle to significant progress. Many different materials that had a high melting point were used in trials and all in a variety of inert, vacuum, or partial vacuum chambers. This last point was because the oxygen in the air, while vital for life to exist, causes fires to burn at lower temperatures and at faster rates. 
*A Swan crosses the line first*

The year of 1840 saw the English physicist and chemist Joseph Wilson Swan join the race to produce a workable electric light and twenty years later in 1860 he patented an incandescent lamp with a filament made from carbonized paper in a partial vacuum. This was the world’s first electric light bulb. 
But only being an experimental version there were limits to its’ illumination (it was quite dim) and it also could only be used very close to the source of power. The vacuum maintenance was also causing some trouble, so Swan, successful but frustrated, turned to other science projects and only returned to improving his invention in 1875 when he switched the filament to one of compressed and carbonized fibrous cotton thread. 
In 1878 he demonstrated his new version. This was a year earlier than Thomas Edison, who had independently chosen the same textile for the filament in his light bulb, after he and his assistants had exhaustively tested 6000 alternative plant fibers from every corner of the Earth, before settling on cotton as the best. 
*Edison takes charge, (with some help)*

Swan’s improved lamp lit well for thirteen and-a-half hours. Edison did beat this, his lasting for a little under fifteen hours. 
Thomas Alva Edison was no ordinary inventor and due to his numerous past successes and fame, had a number of wealthy industrialists providing him with money to back his projects. So he bought Swan’s patent from the company that then owned it (not from Joseph Wilson Swan himself) and the latter passed into the history books (or the better ones, anyway). 
Edison now began to rapidly improve the working life span of the light bulb. His further experiments leading to better and better versions until by 1880, his bamboo fiber filament lamp was a 16 watt bulb that lasted for anywhere between 1200-1500 hours. 
Though this again was not entirely down to him. A large reason for the long burning filaments was the complete lack of oxygen inside the glass bulb. An inventor called Herman Sprengel had produced a device called a mercury vacuum pump, which was better than anything Swan or Edison himself had yet come up with at evacuating the air from the lamp’s chamber. This at last could allow for the first ‘long life’ light bulbs. 
And the design for the bulb itself employed by Edison was not his alone, his had evolved out of a glass concept invented by two Canadians: Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans; but they had been unsuccessful in finding willing backers for their bulb, and having no financial muscle themselves, ended up like Swan, having their rights to patent bought by Thomas Edison, and also like Swan, are hardly known today whilst Edison is regularly hailed as the father of the light bulb. 
One should not belittle Edison, mind. He behaved perfectly legally at all times and improved the originals immensely, allowing them to become widespread in use. And although he did not get there first, his original had also been slightly better than the competition. 
*Moving on*

In the next century 1903 saw Willis Whitnew invent a metal-coating for the carbon filament which avoided the inside of the bulb turning dark with sooty residue. In addition to this, 1906 saw tungsten (still in common use today) making its appearance as the General Electric Company patented a way of producing filaments from this excellent candidate metal. Indeed Edison himself had known tungsten would eventually prove to be the best choice for filaments in incandescent light bulbs, but in his day, the machinery needed to produce the wire in such a fine form was not available. Engineering had come on in leaps and bounds in the intervening years but tungsten filament production was still a costly pastime for business until 1910 when William David Coolidge of General Electric improved the process of manufacture to make the longest lasting tungsten filaments available to all. 
So the wonder of electric light bulbs were soon seen in all parts of the world where electricity itself stood proud, and even in some places where it didn’t yet (which must have been unbelievably maddening). Little electric friends that make life so much easier for everyone, and they continued to evolve and adapt to a number of choices of types for different purposes, looks and occasions. 
Here are just some of the changes that occurred. 

In the twenties the first ‘frosted’ light bulbs emerged.
Also in the twenties; adjustable power beam bulbs for car headlamps, and neon lighting.
The thirties saw the invention of little one-time flashbulbs for photography, and the fluorescent tanning lamp.
The forties saw the first ’soft light’ incandescent bulbs.
The fifties had Quartz glass and later, the halogen light bulb.
The sixties and the seventies brought better ellipsoid reflectors and mirrors for even brighter bulbs.
The eighties had new low wattage metal halides.
The nineties produced the amazing 60,000+ hour magnetic induction light bulb invented by the Dutch electrical company Philips. Also, the popularization of new environmentally friendly bulbs like the full spectrum light bulb.
So what next? Who knows, maybe LED (Light Emitting Diodes) will replace them eventually but electric light bulbs probably still have a few tricks up their sleeves yet. They’ve already come a long way and will continue to brighten our lives in all their glorious shapes, sizes and colors for a long time to come. 
*About The Author*

Matt Jacks is a freelance writer providing tips and advice for consumers. His numerous articles offer moneysaving tips and valuable insight on typically confusing topics


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

B4T said:


> All that sounds great but a basic (100) watt A lamp is $.39 cents and a (23) watt CFL is $3.50.. A lamp.. (2000) hours... CFL (10,000) hours..
> 
> Figure in the energy saved and difference in cost and I bet you come out even when all the dust settles..


It has settled.
Number of fixtures: Replace 1-100W A lamp with 23 W CFL
Average number of hours on per year:4500
Your electric cost per kilowatt hour:$.10 
Watts per fixture used in current system: 100 
Watts per fixture used in proposed system:23
Cost to upgrade each fixture:$4.00 rounded up
*Cost of Electricity*
Current system:$45.00 per year 
Proposed system:$10.35 per year 
*Energy Savings with proposed system* Each fixture:$34.65 per year
The cost of waiting to upgrade your lighting system is $2.89 per month
ROI (%) = [Annual Energy Savings ($) ÷ Net Installation Cost ($)] x 100
34.65/4=8.6625 *100 *ROI = 866%*
5 *.39=1.95 Incandescent lamps not purchased savings over the life of the CFL


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

Say Farewell To The 100-Watt Incandescent Lamp. As of January 1, 2012, it will be a violation of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to import the bulbs to the United States or to manufacture them there. (In California, state law banned the bulb as of January 1, 2011.) 
“Light bulbs are now subject to the same kind of standard used to measure automobile efficiency; output per unit of input,” explained Mary Beth Gotti, a member of the NLB’s board and manager of GE Lighting’s GE Lighting Institute. “For automobiles, it’s measured as MPG... for light bulbs, it’s measured as LPW; that’s lumens—a measure of the amount of light produced per watt of electric power required to operate the bulb. Conventional 100W incandescent light bulbs produce about 17 lumens per watt, a rating that’s too low to meet the new standards.”


----------



## cguillas (Jun 25, 2009)

Since edison was in the energy supply business too, I doubt he'd give a fig about energy efficient lightbulbs. He'd be researching "free-fuel" energies like wind and solar and selling his customers the most energy intensive bulbs and devices he could manufacture and he'd do it in bulk, too.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

What I love is the guarantee of "No Wasted Current." Where on earth would the current through the lamp be going except to produce light and heat?

"Yeah, those other lamps of yours just pump all those amps right into the atmosphere. What a waste!" :laughing:

-John


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Big John said:


> What I love is the guarantee of "No Wasted Current." Where on earth would the current through the lamp be going except to produce light and heat?
> 
> "Yeah, those other lamps of yours just pump all those amps right into the atmosphere. What a waste!" :laughing:
> 
> -John


I guess they were in competition with gas lighting at the time and needed a sales pitch..


----------



## oliquir (Jan 13, 2011)

does halogen light have better efficiency than regular incandescent bulbs?


----------



## cguillas (Jun 25, 2009)

oliquir said:


> does halogen light have better efficiency than regular incandescent bulbs?


Well, both are 100% efficient at converting the energy they use into either heat or light energy. If you're just talking about light though, yes, watt for watt, a halogen lightbulb should produce more light. 

Quebec is on this big push right now to get their customers to switch over to CFLs, going so far as to rebate their purchase price. Problem is since almost everyone there heats electrically eight months a year, nobody saves any money or electricity because the waste heat energy from the old bulbs now has to be made up for in the baseboards. Dumb dumb dumb. You want ti save energy? Stop rebating lightbulbs and start rebating double pane windows.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

cguillas said:


> Well, both are 100% efficient at converting the energy they use into either heat or light energy. If you're just talking about light though, yes, watt for watt, a halogen lightbulb should produce more light.
> 
> Quebec is on this big push right now to get their customers to switch over to CFLs, going so far as to rebate their purchase price. Problem is since almost everyone there heats electrically eight months a year, nobody saves any money or electricity because the waste heat energy from the old bulbs now has to be made up for in the baseboards. Dumb dumb dumb. You want ti save energy? Stop rebating lightbulbs and start rebating double pane windows.


 They use a lot of electric heat in Canada?:blink:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

The Lightman said:


> Say Farewell To The 100-Watt Incandescent Lamp. As of January 1, 2012, it will be a violation of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to import the bulbs to the United States or to manufacture them there. (In California, state law banned the bulb as of January 1, 2011.)
> “Light bulbs are now subject to the same kind of standard used to measure automobile efficiency; output per unit of input,” explained Mary Beth Gotti, a member of the NLB’s board and manager of GE Lighting’s GE Lighting Institute. “For automobiles, it’s measured as MPG... for light bulbs, it’s measured as LPW; that’s lumens—a measure of the amount of light produced per watt of electric power required to operate the bulb. Conventional 100W incandescent light bulbs produce about 17 lumens per watt, a rating that’s too low to meet the new standards.”


I guess we'll start seeing 98-watt lamps then.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

480sparky said:


> I guess we'll start seeing 98-watt lamps then.


We'll just re-label the 100 W, 130 V lamps:laughing:


----------



## cguillas (Jun 25, 2009)

mattsilkwood said:


> They use a lot of electric heat in Canada?:blink:


Depends on where you are. In Ontario where you have time-of-use electricity pricing and the energy sources are still often coal and natural gas, no, very few people heat with anything other than a central gas or oil furnace since even the off-peak electricity prices are expensive. 

On the other hand, Quebec produces almost all electrical energy using renewable hydro sources. Their energy rate for residential consumers is extremely low at $0.056/kWh regardless of time of day. As a result, even people with new homes usually heat with electric baseboards.


----------



## JRaef (Mar 23, 2009)

Something else I had always wondered, where did the "Mazda" come from.

Wiki had the answer!

*Mazda* was a trademarked name created by the Shelby Electric Company for incandescent light bulbs. The name was used from 1909 through 1945 in the United States by Shelby and later General Electric; Mazda brand light bulbs were made for decades after 1945 outside the USA. The company chose the name due to its association with [Ahura] Mazda, the transcendental and universal God of Zoroastrianism whose name means "[Wise] Lord " in the Avestan language.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Shelby went out of business because they made a lamp that actually lasted.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

MDShunk said:


> Shelby went out of business because they made a lamp that actually lasted.


 ...Which is exactly why we'll never see 120V LED lamps that actually last 100,000 hours that LEDs are capable of. Even though they have the technology to produce them, it's damn sure not in the manufacturer's interest to sell you one lamp every 11 years. :no:

-John


----------



## JRaef (Mar 23, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> Shelby went out of business because they made a lamp that actually lasted.


Actually Shelby was bought by GE, but probably for the exact same reason. No better way to get rid of a pesky competitor with a superior product than to buy them and gut them.


----------



## dmxtothemax (Jun 15, 2010)

I have a mazda incandesant lamp that is at least 40 years old,
and is still working, it gets intermittant use,
But still working after 40 years,
Thats a good run.
So mazda cant be too bad.


----------



## bobelectric (Feb 24, 2007)

Thanks for the history lesson!​


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Anyone know where I can get a headlight for an RX-7 ? :laughing:


----------



## sxpert (Jun 17, 2011)

Big John said:


> ...Which is exactly why we'll never see 120V LED lamps that actually last 100,000 hours that LEDs are capable of. Even though they have the technology to produce them, it's damn sure not in the manufacturer's interest to sell you one lamp every 11 years. :no:
> 
> -John


well, we'll see about that, I just replaced the mercury laden CFLs at home with those new fangled LED bulbs from philips lighting...
they also apparently manufacture LED tubes


----------



## dmxtothemax (Jun 15, 2010)

Yeah you can get LED versions of the floro tube,
BUT they are $100 Australian each !
And they dont have as much output as the latest
modern high outpot floro tube.
The only justifiable use for such an expensive tube
is perhaps where power is at a premium or access/longlife
is paramount.
like maybe in the space shuttle.
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_112104/article.html
heres an articule about them.


----------



## sxpert (Jun 17, 2011)

funny. I've installed 3m of 12v flex ledstrip in my bathroom, lights up much better than the previously used CFL


----------



## dmxtothemax (Jun 15, 2010)

If you can get the LED strips at a realistic price,
Then theres no problem using them,
But my point was that LED type floro's are expensive !
At least here in Australia.
Not sure how much they cost in USA or Europe.


----------



## sxpert (Jun 17, 2011)

the led strips are about 20€ a meter... then you need a decent power supply.
if they last half as long as the manufacturer says , you saved quite a lot already


----------

