Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: incandescent light bulb life extender
Keywords: lamp life, economics
Message-ID: <1991Jan3.202307.18533@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 3 Jan 91 20:23:07 GMT
References: <6213@videovax.tv.tek.com> <4078@osc.COM> <1990Dec13.172348.20146@amd.com> <1991Jan3.160840.5468@tc.fluke.COM>
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Reply-To: kludge@grissom.gatech.edu ( Scott Dorsey)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 18

In article <4078@osc.COM> jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) writes:
>The conclusion is that if you're dropping the supply voltage, or equivalently
>using a higher rated voltage, you're making a mistake.  If you're happy with
>the reduced light output, then you should use a lower wattage bulb with the
>right voltage.  You'll use less power and also get better color.

Not always.  For motion picture use, I'll often use a ballast to run 
household 150W bulbs at 165V.  I get a good 250W of power at almost exactly
3400'K (normal household bulbs are closer to 2800'K at rated voltage).  They
last about 4 hours on the average, as opposed to the 7 hours that 250W
photoflood bulbs last, but they cost about a quarter as much.  The color is
right on (and is more easily controlled too).

--
Scott Dorsey/ Kaptain Kludge
NASA Langley Research Center, Aircraft Guidance and Control Branch

Disclaimer: Neither NASA nor Lockheed really know anything about what