# Incans are heading towards exctinction



## etc (May 30, 2018)

Because nobody is buying incans anymore. The vast majority are going you know where. It's not the lumens. It's the total cost of ownership that's the bottom line. And the consumer is a price shopper. The bulbs constantly blow out and have a limited lifepsan. It's a PITA to deal with that and carry spare sets on mission-critical assignments.
The things go through batteries like crazy. The performance generated is not all that great versus possibilities. Runtime is downright awful. So it's not really the lumen level. 

Surefire is no longer offering any incan models. Hasn't for years.

The incan bulb industry is fast heading the way of the CRT monitor, non-digital photography and the VHS tapes. All of these still have holdouts to various degrees but are either a seriously endangered or extinct species, either right here and now or just around the corner. The traffic on this subforum is 1/10 to 1/15 of the LED sub-forum.

Support is slowly drying up as evidenced by this post. When sales are low, stores close. Or re-tool for new technologies. Like Kodak. Has become irrelevant because they did not in time adapt to the digital photography and stuck to an old paradigm. So, evolve or perish. A device invented in the typewriter era has outlived it but is about to join it. So why even invest in dying technology. 

OTOH, mint condition 20 year old incan Surefires will bring premium prices to eccentric collectors. Like the people that collect typewriters and ford model T's. (And then don't really use them but use laptops and new Toyotas to get around).




bloopyjack said:


> I did several searches to see if there was any new info about the closing of bulb search site Donsbulbs.com and I didn't find anything on CPF about this.
> Tonight I tried to go to Donsbulbs.com and this message is all that showed up.
> 
> *--- Don has retired, and donsbulbs is permanently closed ---
> ...


----------



## bykfixer (May 30, 2018)

So.... what is the point of this thread?


----------



## archimedes (May 30, 2018)

etc said:


> .... The bulbs constantly blow out and have a limited lifepsan....



I see this (or similar words to that effect) posted regularly, but I am really amazed at how _infrequently_ I need to replace _high-quality_ (like most SureFire) lamps, when using a _soft-start_ setup....

It is difficult for me to quantify exactly, since I don't track runtime, but I have to replace a lamp _much_ less than once per year on average :shrug:


----------



## bykfixer (May 30, 2018)

1940's oem bulb still working





1990's ROP still working





1917 bulb... still working





1920's bulbs... still working





Late 90's/early 00's SureFire bulbs... still working





Laser Products P60... still working.


----------



## id30209 (May 30, 2018)

Thread title is as much as we don't like it, true. After years of inactivity, i just start building stash of available bulbs and moding led mags on incans just because of eminent. And beside the fact i feel like a weirdo posting WTB incans request, also have a feeling i'm the only one buying something for incans. Point of incans, money wise, it's missed subject. It's the look i like switching that light on and don't care how long and what price. Sorry for my bad english but i had to write something.


----------



## knucklegary (May 30, 2018)

Mr Byke, Does that 1908 take a bulb or a CW paper cap?
Can I please some I.D..


----------



## etc (May 30, 2018)

archimedes said:


> I see this (or similar words to that effect) posted regularly, but I am really amazed at how _infrequently_ I need to replace _high-quality_ (like most SureFire) lamps, when using a _soft-start_ setup....
> 
> It is difficult for me to quantify exactly, since I don't track runtime, but I have to replace a lamp _much_ less than once per year on average :shrug:



High-quality has nothing to do with it. there is a limited runtime built-in. That's all. When the time is up, it's up.

Let me illustrate it this way. If I had go to on a mission-critical and life-threatening assignment where light / illumination technology and its reliability was absolutely paramount to my success and survival, I would most definitely not take any light with any incan module that was even remotely capable of being blown out. It's not the odds but what's at stake.

Like walking through some European catacombs or some caves or some scary abandoned city buildings or some outdoor mountainous terrain and a long list of other 1000 and 1 things.
I am not swapping bulbs inside some Paris catacomb with water dripping on my head and so dark that it's thick in front of you.


----------



## archimedes (May 30, 2018)

I think most of the remaining incandescent fans probably just don't post much.

After all, how much is there to really discuss any more ?

Essentially no new products and no new development, to speak of, as well as overall declining interest.

That's not to say there is _nothing_ worth talking about, but simply that those who still like and use these, mostly are satisfied with their current setup(s) and others are largely indifferent.

I say this as one who uses an A2 regularly and still finds it to be an excellent and practical illumination tool.

Although I think it would be nice to see more discussion in this forum, it is what it is ....


----------



## etc (May 30, 2018)

bykfixer said:


> So.... what is the point of this thread?



Well, the point is what you make of it. 

Incans are still around but are just an expensive hobby for eccentrics at this point increasingly diminishing in their market share and rapidly increasing irrelevance.

Not when you can buy a $40 light that does genuine 800 lumens that expensive incans have a hard time matching (and maintaining runtime for more than 10 minutes) And not when you buy a $20 light than will never quit and have a better reliability record than 1990's or even 2000's top of the line Surefires with all this incan stuff built-in.

The aforementioned Co. recognized which way the ship was heading and jumped off the bandwagon instead of going down with Titanic. Hence various bulb makers / sellers are closing doors. The water is up to the pipe and lights are flickering. You could see the writing on the wall years ago, as many as 10.

Old incan lights, model trains and other esoteric stuff. The stuff that will live forever in various basement collections.


----------



## etc (May 30, 2018)

id30209 said:


> Thread title is as much as we don't like it, true. After years of inactivity, i just start building stash of available bulbs and moding led mags on incans just because of eminent. And beside the fact i feel like a weirdo posting WTB incans request, also have a feeling i'm the only one buying something for incans. Point of incans, money wise, it's missed subject. It's the look i like switching that light on and don't care how long and what price. Sorry for my bad english but i had to write something.



Most people are money shoppers.

They have no concept of tint or runtime of lumens, or only vaguely so.

They just want to get something that never demands bulb swap and only occasional, rare battery swap.

They know than the latest-greatest $25 Chimart item will run for 10 or 20 hours versus incans for 1.5 hours at most and get dim fast.

For one thing, you cannot even buy incans at any big box stores, I don't think. Not even Mag. That's being phased out, either right here, right now or if not, just around the corner. 


I gave a 2xAA no-brand name device to an older relative and she said, being completely technologically illiterate, Oh, it's one of those new lights you never have to change the batteries in.


----------



## archimedes (May 30, 2018)

etc said:


> High-quality has nothing to do with it. there is a limited runtime built-in. That's all. When the time is up, it's up....



I don't think this is correct, at least in the sense like a carbon arc lamp electrodes are consumed.

Although I am not an expert on these, my understanding is that the halogen cycle in expensive high-quality lamps promotes redeposition of tungsten back onto the filament.

So, I think these lamps mostly fail, when something actually "breaks" them ... shock, overcurrent, undercurrent, envelope leak, etc, etc.

Yes, the vaporization and redeposition is not perfect, so there is indeed a _finite_ service lifespan, but under optimal conditions that can be quite extensive (albeit unpredictable)


----------



## etc (May 30, 2018)

We don't operate under optimum conditions. It gets turned on and off and not heated properly, plus there are various environmental factors. Are you at -40 or +40C?

Incans are not what you want when your life depends on proper "re-deposition of tungsten back onto the filament".

There is a finite lifespan and that's that. The fact you don't know when the time is up adds excitement to this equation. But when it's up - it's up. And it could hit any second. Or run its designated 600 hours. Or exceed them. But still fail at some point. 

the above pics of this bulb ran since 1940's, etc. - it just exponentially increases their likelyhood of failure at this point. The longer you cruise. The bulbs have given 99% of what they can give.

There is of course the interesting factor where a lot of electronics fails early in its life, whatever is the term for it. If it passes this critical period, it will run for its scheduled life.
I don't know if this syndrome is specifically applicable to bulbs but would not be surprised.

Regardless of the above, its scheduled lifetime can be canceled by a shock, a hit or a fall. So there goes that equation. The filament is not as durable as solid-state electronics despite all the shock-proof gizmos attached to it.


----------



## archimedes (May 30, 2018)

I'm not sure where this strawman argument about mission critical life-or-death situations is coming from ?

No one here has said anything of the sort.

Yes, lamps can and do fail.
Yes, LED flashlights can and do fail.

Yes, the *emitter* portion of the equation, _looked at in isolation_ is generally speaking rather (substantially) more reliable for LED than incandescent at this point in time. But you still need backups for mission critical functions.

Who is using incandescent lamps for these purposes at present ?

But, are incandescent flashlights still useful, for at least some of the 99.999% other non-dangerous utility purposes where some illumination may be wanted ?


----------



## bykfixer (May 30, 2018)

knucklegary said:


> Mr Byke, Does that 1908 take a bulb or a CW paper cap?
> Can I please some I.D..



It's a 1917 Franco flashlight that used 2 aa's and was a promo item to help sell batteries. It was largely used as prizes for newspaper subscription contests and stuff like that. 










A diagram of the mechanics when you pull the trigger.



I think the original intention of this thread showcases a lack of understanding of the big picture. Sure, $3 Rayovacs are no longer incan. And yes the industry output aint what it used to be. But ask Mark at Lumens Factory or Tad at Tads Customs their thoughts. There are still lots of light bulbs being produced and sold across the planet earth. Just because a CPF'r thinks and industry is defunct does not make it so. 

Titanic? Not really. Matter of fact a couple of lab coat wearing chaps at MIT have a prototype light bulb that in it's infancy is already brighter and more efficient watt per watt than LED's.


----------



## scout24 (May 30, 2018)

I know for fact that as recently as four years ago, at least one FBI agent in my neck of the woods was using a SF M3-headed weaponlight on his issue M4 carbine. I know this because I was shocked to see an MN-10 bulb in there when it came out of the case in his trunk. (I was working as a mechanic for my local P.D. at the time, and was friendly with a wide assortment of officers from a bunch of agencies having worked there for 20+ years.) I tried to give him an MN-11, but was told any deviation from issue equipment was a no-go. Hence, no Malkoff or anyone else's dropin, either. He was still carrying a 6P at the time as well. I haven't seen him since, but I'd be shocked if that situation had changed.


----------



## id30209 (May 30, 2018)

Most of the gents using incans are the ones using small form like A2 and those using super-ultra bulbs long or short lifetime but used primarily in microscopes, projectors etc. First group is using them cause of the size, tint and some emotions, other group because they don't care about runtime (mostly) but to have old school bright, power drain monster, same like muscle cars. Best ones are old bodies stuffed with technology (AlanB or Jimmy's regulators) and most of all huge cc engine (osram 64623,657...) 
The point of having that car...so you can say you have it and be seen. Or drag race, the same thing is with incans these days. Not economical, blowing off from time to time but we like it! 
But there are some aplications where incans still cannot be replaced. Can't remember it which ones exactly this moment but there are. 
They are on a brink of exctinction but people still have fun with them.
After all, who doesn't like to see paper been torched by a flashlight?
Can led do that?
There's no replacement for displacement.


----------



## ma tumba (May 30, 2018)

An electric fireplace is more efficient, ecological, etc, etc than a traditional one, fed by the wood. A money minded person would never go natural here. But a lot of people would


----------



## knucklegary (May 30, 2018)

Bykfixer, What a cool promo flashlight.. Thanks for sharing photos!

Btw, I burn almond wood, it's clean and efficient - Far more economical than pellets (electricity) So what does that have to do with incan vs leds?


----------



## LiftdT4R (May 30, 2018)

etc said:


> Because nobody is buying incans anymore.



Nobody? :duh2:

Granted it's not a big market but do you think horses went extinct when people started buying cars? I'd say it's more of a niche market now but it certainly still exists.

Heck I wouldn't say that the people on this forum who still regularly post in the incan section are nobodies. We have a pretty dedicated following and like our incans just fine.


----------



## LiftdT4R (May 30, 2018)

bykfixer said:


> 1940's oem bulb still working
> 
> 1990's ROP still working
> 
> ...



Come on Mr. Fixer. Surely nobody uses those. :ironic:


----------



## bykfixer (May 31, 2018)

Nope, they're in the eccentrics basement with all the electric model trains. I use them to the see my vhs tapes and albums.


----------



## id30209 (May 31, 2018)

bykfixer said:


> Nope, they're in the eccentrics basement with all the electric model trains. I use them to the see my vhs tapes and albums.



I would do the same bykfixer if i had them


----------



## etc (May 31, 2018)

I did. I said it. Because it was necessary. It's not fantasy, it's reality. One day you will find yourself in a life or death situation where your life hangs in the balance and the only thing between you and the abyss is that teeny tiny bulb. 

I cannot say I have been in one and it pulled me out but I have been in plenty of critical situations where failure it could have made a big difference.

I mean a person who wants to climb a mountain or go down into a cave or perhaps into the sandbox and takes an old Incan light with him - in this day and age with currently available alternatives - needs to have his head checked.

We are not usually in these situations -- until we are. I mean, you cannot anticipate or predict an emergency, right? That's why it's called an emergency.
Otherwise it would be called a "scheduled outage".

The weakest link in the latter is the battery perhaps. And that can be remedied. In the former, there are multiple weakest links. The very design is designed to have a limited runtime. You are replacing either batteries or bulbs. Why do you think Surefire includes that cool bulb holder with their gear.


----------



## Lumen83 (May 31, 2018)

etc said:


> Most people are money shoppers.
> 
> They have no concept of tint or runtime of lumens, or only vaguely so.
> 
> ...



These aren't the people who were buying high quality incan lights when high quality incan lights ruled the market. Those people were buying cheap flashlights back then too. High quality incan lights aren't going the way of the dinosaurs because the budget shoppers are buying budget LED lights. High quality incan lights went the way of the dinosaurs because the people who bought high quality incan lights started buying high quality LED lights that suited their need for high quality lights better.


----------



## etc (May 31, 2018)

id30209 said:


> Most of the gents using incans are the ones using small form like A2 and those using super-ultra bulbs long or short lifetime but used primarily in microscopes, projectors etc. First group is using them cause of the size, tint and some emotions, other group because they don't care about runtime (mostly) but to have old school bright, power drain monster, same like muscle cars.



To go with the muscle car analogy - okay, will play.

These guys who race them tow them to the race track using a new toyota pickup truck and drive a Camry on a daily basis.

There has been some improvements to the incan technology lately, as much as possible, just like there has been some improvements to the carb'ed cars in the late 80's. Smart feedback carburetors with all the electronic stuff attached to them, making them even less reliable and with all the downsides of the carb.

The anti-shock bezels, various improvements to the core technology but at its core all of the issues remain unresolved since they are unresolvable. 

The incans are the remaining holds out in the new world, just like you occasionally see old 70's or 60's cars - on the weekends and the drivers probably drive Priuses to work or Corollas.

I had an old school Buick converted into a muscle car. Got all the old school upgrades, was pulling between 300-400 horses. The olde station wagon was the ultimate sleeper. It would fly. It would easily keep up with the power cars of its era, 1990's. None of the ricers could keep up with it. Even up to BMW M3, though not really M5. I had low gears, headers, tuned to run only on 93 octane and a long list of things. 

Even then modern muscle cars would kick its rear end out of the box, and definitively. And for a fraction of the cost and for a fraction of gas.

And the mileage was abysmal. It really overexerted itself to barely keep up with power econoboxes today. I don't know, all the various Mazda "sport" sedans.

My Roadmaster was like Surefire M6. Very fast for its day and age but non-competitive today using any parameter like purchase price, lumens, runtime and overall cost to run the damn thing per year. Unless you just like the graceful lines of the 90's Surefire M6 (and such) design as much as I do GM station wagons of same era.

At its core, it's an emotional decision.


----------



## LiftdT4R (May 31, 2018)

bykfixer said:


> Nope, they're in the eccentrics basement with all the electric model trains. I use them to the see my vhs tapes and albums.



I heard those incan guys still have mullets and drive Trans Ams too, lol.

Seriously though, I get a lot of requests to restore incan lights from my blog which leads me to believe there’s a good bit of folks out there still using and valuing them. 

At at the core most of the lights purchased are frivolous emotional purchases and that’s ok so let’s try not to knock someone else’s hobby by saying it’s irrelevant. I have plenty of expensive LED lights that I know I don’t need but I’m not going to say they are useless. They’re fun just like my incans!

This is a silly thread. Can we get back to discussing incans instead of discussing their relevance? The fact that this forum exists and is active proves they are relevant. /thread


----------



## bykfixer (May 31, 2018)

Once upon a time humans depended on fire on a stick to provide heat to their drafty homes and light oil lamps. Marvelous inventions in their day.

In about 1900 the electric fire on a stick was invented to provide lighting to bicyclists before the automobile was more than a fad. That technology was used in life and death situations until just a few years ago. Millions and millions of soldiers, police, fire personnel, rescue workers, coal miners, and so on relied on the light bulb in life or death situations. By the 1980's companies were providing shock absorbing technologies into lighting tools. For over 100 years the light bulb was used. 

At some point what seemed like a fad, the LED eventually took over the market at large. But that by no means makes the light bulb a bad idea anymore than matches used to light a charcoal grill. And to bias an older technology as useless just shows a 1 dimensional approach to life in general. 

There will come a day where the combustion engine is an old technology. Same with coal powered electric plants. Will that make them useless? No. Will that make the few who prefer the combustion engine a subject of ridicule? Probably by some. 

Good debate going here.


----------



## archimedes (May 31, 2018)

@etc ... would you please fix your quote tags above ?

I would appreciate it if you would remove the portion where you appear to be quoting me, but inserting your own commentary.

You are welcome to use "multi-quote" tags to make the same point, in your own voice.

EDIT ... Thank you.


----------



## scout24 (May 31, 2018)

Somebody better tell the big online retailer. If you type "incandescent flashlight" into their search bar, it comes back with "over 1000" results. Let's face it, we're all slowly going extinct. Just because one technology has advantages doesn't mean the other suddenly doesn't work. Having advantages in certain areas? Yes. Making extinct? Hardly. I'd bet 95+ percent of flashlight use is casual, dog-walking, etc. For mission critical applications, redundancy is key. I'd say quality of your chosen platform is as important as which platform you pick. There's plenty of cheap crap on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## idleprocess (May 31, 2018)

As a _"LED guy"_ I might have indulged in some _schadenfreude_ in the past watching incandescents disappearing from store shelves. Now I'm just slightly wistful. Incandescents may have been inefficient and permanently on the low end of the CCT spectrum but they were also mercifully simple with so little to go wrong: bulb or batteries in almost all cases.

Incandescents will be around as long as there's a market for them - something I've been saying for a while now. Surefire may no longer sell incandescent models and I doubt that the local megalomart sells bulbs anymore, but I imagine that there are still places to find bulbs - be they P60 lamps or PR based lamps. Much like how desktop computers are now out of fashion with the broader market interested in laptops and cellphones, one has to go slightly out of their way to procure them.

However, unlike desktop computer enthusiasts, the incandescent flashlight market isn't likely to merely _compact_ down to the power user and gaming market. There is a real possibility that it will all but disappear within the next decade or two to the point that true retail specialists are the sole outlets for components and boutique producers all that remain for the lamps themselves.

Consider _median_ incandesecent flashlight design over the past ~20 years. At one end you have $10 Ray-O-Vacs and at the other you have beasts like the Surefire M6. The overwhelming majority of _production_ was at the Ray-O-Vac end of things but the _value_ balance may well tilt towards the Surefire. ~10 years ago at the Ray-O-Vac end of things when LED domination was already apparent they started transitioning in a way that would be the most cost-effective for the producers: using the same basic designs and tooling with LED shoehorned in ala the LED dropin bulb, then as tooling wore out or stocks ran down they began producing purpose-built flashlights and never looked back. At the Surefire end there's more end-user investment and less producer dependence on volume, but they still move with the markets like everyone else; and while they can turn a tidy profit on replacement bulbs retailing for ~20x what the Ray-O-Vac end of the market captures there's still a point where they too may need to exit the market.

With the Ray-O-Vac end of the market seeing volumes drop to near-zero, itself supporting some of the industrial base that the Surefire end needed, it's not hard to foresee the industry winding down eventually. The Ray-O-Vac market has relatively little investment in their products; $10-$20 flashlights bought after 15 seconds of deliberation at the megalomart that need bulbs costing $1-$2 each are not something the consumer has much concern about. The Surefire market has high investment, but they're kinda-sorta indirectly subsidized by the Ray-O-Vac end of the market ... there's a period where the true incandescent fans will dig in and pay more to support their product, but it's a demographic all but guaranteed to shrink so the original producers either shut down incandescent production entirely or firesale the production lines to boutique producers to make a go of it.

I can't say that individual stockpiling of incandescent lamps is all that irrational - there may come a point where NOS (New Old Stock) is all that's available on the market in certain categories.


----------



## etc (May 31, 2018)

idleprocess said:


> As a _"LED guy"_ I might have indulged in some _schadenfreude_ in the past watching incandescents disappearing from store shelves. Now I'm just slightly wistful. Incandescents may have been inefficient and permanently on the low end of the CCT spectrum but they were also mercifully simple with so little to go wrong: bulb or batteries in almost all cases.
> 
> Incandescents will be around as long as there's a market for them - something I've been saying for a while now. Surefire may no longer sell incandescent models and I doubt that the local megalomart sells bulbs anymore, but I imagine that there are still places to find bulbs - be they P60 lamps or PR based lamps. Much like how desktop computers are now out of fashion with the broader market interested in laptops and cellphones, one has to go slightly out of their way to procure them.
> 
> ...





Interesting analysis.

I remember a few years ago when incan bulbs were mandated to be phased out and there were long lines and people bought them by the cases. To have enough for decades. The CFL alternatives were awful. They were dimmer, the color spectrum was way off, they took time to warm up and more expensive. And if you broke them, the icing on the cake was that you had to clean all the mercury vapors out of them.
They lasted longer but not so much longer as to reimburse the higher purchase price. They had all the disadvantages but few advantages. I don't know what the advantages were. Aside from the (stated) lower consumption. They were a 4-letter word in short.

Now both are obsolete and nowhere to be found. Costco, Chimart, big box stores, etc all have just one thing in stock. Nobody in their right mind buys incan household bulbs or CFL bulbs.

Amazingly the prices have come down significantly also on the alternatives.


It's not OT in the sense that is preview of things to come for the incan industry.
Either right here, right now or just around the corner. Sorry to be Debbie the Downer.


----------



## idleprocess (May 31, 2018)

etc said:


> Interesting analysis.
> 
> I remember a few years ago when incan bulbs were mandated to be phased out and there were long lines and people bought them by the cases. To have enough for decades. The CFL alternatives were awful. They were dimmer, the color spectrum was way off, they took time to warm up and more expensive. And if you broke them, the icing on the cake was that you had to clean all the mercury vapors out of them.
> They lasted longer but not so much longer as to reimburse the higher purchase price. They had all the disadvantages but few advantages. I don't know what the advantages were. Aside from the (stated) lower consumption. They were a 4-letter word in short.
> ...



In my experience, CFLs were _pretty tolerable_ in their earlier iterations - lasted for many years, started up fast, and had decent color rendition. At $10 each they were good lamps; at $5 each were marginal; and at $2 they sucked. With each reduction in cost the OEMs cut something out and made them worse. They do contain mercury, but the fear of that mercury seems to be overblown - I'm not aware of any instances of poisoning traceable to CFLs; even linear tubes have a tiny fraction of the stuff that they did up until the early 80s.

I had no regrets about the CFLs I bought at ~$10 each circa 2002-2004. Most lasted 5+ years, some lasted me through 3 locations and 10 years. By any reasonable assessment of TCO I came out well ahead of incandescents.

Modern CFLs? I've down to 4: 3 candelabra base bulbs in a fixture over my stairs that I _wish_ would die; a 4th in a drill press _(had to do something with the 4th one in the pack)_ that's just tolerable / not used often enough to justify replacement.

Watching people gaze in frustration at the light bulb selection in the likes of Home Despot, I too am amazed that there's a market for CFLs given the visceral lip-curl I see when people look at them. Many yearn for the simplicity of incandescent where the variables were wattage, formfactor, and a few gimmick-y attempts at differentiation ala GE Reveal. LED has gained some acceptance as retail prices have dropped - with consequences similar to CFL. But the market misses incandescent with its cheap initial purchase price that's felt immediately as opposed to that silent, invisible operating cost that always dwarfs purchase price. Throw in the market's love of dimmers, occupancy sensors, and other gewgaws designed specifically to work with incandescent filaments that CFL and LED don't adapt to as gracefully alongside CFL/LED failure modes that incandescent never suffered and it's a bit more understandable. In my region air conditioning is the dominant consumer of electricity 6+ months of the year so whatever savings CFL/LED promises is difficult to see when that electrical bill comes due.

In another few years I see CFLs disappearing from the market. We'll be down to incandescents and LED. With enforcement of the previous administration's prohibition against incandescents scuttled by congress and the present administration's apparent disinterest in this flavor of regulation I expect the _legal_ barriers to selling incandescents will be reduced _(I'm simply assessing history here and have zero interest in arguing the politics)_. Producers may be reluctant to re-commit to incandescents however due to lack of certainty with regards to long term domestic policy and more consistent international regulatory pressure against them. Barring some of the materials-science breakthroughs we've heard rumblings about but yet to see on the market I suspect that the incandescent lamp for general illumination will shrink down to a specialty / limited-production item as the generations that grew up with / loved incandescents age out.


----------



## bykfixer (May 31, 2018)

LiftdT4R said:


> I heard those incan guys still have mullets and drive Trans Ams too, lol.
> 
> Seriously though, I get a lot of requests to restore incan lights from my blog which leads me to believe there’s a good bit of folks out there still using and valuing them.
> 
> ...



Dang right. 

Well, the mullett is gone in exchange for a buzz cut and flame tatoo'd skull.
And yes the Trans Am is still running strong with a 3D Maglite rolling around the floor board. 

I have neighbors who won't use LED flashlights or bulbs in their home. 

My home has all kinds of CFL bulbs. Some pretty good. Others make the area a ghastly grey/blue. Yet they haven't stopped working so they're staying. Most go back to the $10 each days. 
I have krypton bulbs that lasted longer than the 4 for $10 CFL's. One krypton for a table lamp is pushing 7 years now.


----------



## KITROBASKIN (May 31, 2018)

So much of this discussion could easily replace the word 'incandescents' with 'vinyl records' and we could party like it's 1999.
At my mother's estate sale, the vinyl records went, that's for sure.
My 8 year old son has a friend whose older siblings like to play vintage video games!


----------



## archimedes (May 31, 2018)

:rock: ... Is anyone making brand new vacuum tubes for amps, or is that all gone now too ...


----------



## scout24 (May 31, 2018)

Arch- What comes around, goes around. What's old is new again. Pick your adage. I received a user E1e from the 'Bay this afternoon that's in my pocket right now. Popped a LF HO-E1R in there with an Efest IMR 16340. Rockin' the single output, inefficient battery killer to walk the pups tonight. I will have a black BOSS 70 in my back pocket though, just in case...  Don't worry, there will be a niche market for tubes, and somebody will produce them. Right now, we have Lumensfactory, Tad's customs, and who else producing incan bulbs to keep the classic Surefire's going? 

Nevermind factory support for Mags, Streamlight, Rayovac, etc...


----------



## archimedes (May 31, 2018)

... two outta three ain't bad :devil:


----------



## etc (Jun 1, 2018)

idleprocess said:


> In my experience, CFLs were _pretty tolerable_ in their earlier iterations - lasted for many years, started up fast, and had decent color rendition. At $10 each they were good lamps; at $5 each were marginal; and at $2 they sucked. With each reduction in cost the OEMs cut something out and made them worse. They do contain mercury, but the fear of that mercury seems to be overblown - I'm not aware of any instances of poisoning traceable to CFLs; even linear tubes have a tiny fraction of the stuff that they did up until the early 80s.
> 
> I had no regrets about the CFLs I bought at ~$10 each circa 2002-2004. Most lasted 5+ years, some lasted me through 3 locations and 10 years. By any reasonable assessment of TCO I came out well ahead of incandescents.
> 
> ...



I haven't seen any CFLs for sale in a while. Maybe it's the regional market in the area I am at (the most expensive area in the country, one of). The local Home Depot, Costco, etc. has all the shelves full of you-know-what. No CFLs. 

I think CFLs failed on many levels, one of the not so obvious ones, initially was the slow speed at which they gained full lumens. This became especially relevant with motion sensor flood lights. The LED technology turns on much faster than CFLs and somewhat faster than incans. It's on, right there at full lumens and instantly so. This may be critical in some applications. 

Maybe I got the wrong brands but I've never had luck with the CFLs. They never got me the promises runtime. Always burning out way before and seemingly not that longer than incans. I don't remember the brand or price point anymore but overall I was not impressed and of course I did break one once upon a time. 

Both incan and CFL are dead technologies. Too expensive and complicated. By expensive I mean not the purchase price but the cost of lifetime ownership. Not just buying replacements but in some cases you have to pay someone to replace the silly thing that burned out once again. Burned out headlights, tail-lights, lights in the celiing that are hard to reach, etc. On some cars, you have to remove the bumper to swap the headlight. 
Incan as a whole is a minor nightmare. It was a miracle in the year 1900 but we are not in 1900 anymore when the alternative was the dim, smoking and dangerous kerosine lamp or candles in the year 1700.

Let this be a lesson, the CFL trend is the preview of where incans are headed. CFL is already unobtanium in my area. Soon to be so everywhere. Or already there if you use surefire dot com as the proverbial canary in the coal mine.


----------



## etc (Jun 1, 2018)

scout24 said:


> Arch- What comes around, goes around. What's old is new again. Pick your adage. I received a user E1e from the 'Bay this afternoon that's in my pocket right now. Popped a LF HO-E1R in there with an Efest IMR 16340. Rockin' the single output, inefficient battery killer to walk the pups tonight. I will have a black BOSS 70 in my back pocket though, just in case...  Don't worry, there will be a niche market for tubes, and somebody will produce them. Right now, we have Lumensfactory, Tad's customs, and who else producing incan bulbs to keep the classic Surefire's going?
> 
> Nevermind factory support for Mags, Streamlight, Rayovac, etc...



support of what, exactly?

2D Maglite the incan version generates 27 lumens.

The MAGLITE ML25LT LED 2C model generates 177, has better runtime and the "bulb" never burns out. We are talking about lumens being an order of magnitude higher as well as other parameters.

Oh the icing on the cake is the price is lower for the ML25LT at least for me, the Amazon price version.


----------



## bykfixer (Jun 1, 2018)

Dude! Stop! Please. :candle:


----------



## etc (Jun 1, 2018)

That's the best argument I've seen thus far, this gem above. Pure brilliance.

Anyway, talking here is like shooting fish in a barrel, not much sport. 

I am bored now so shall leave you to your own devices. You are right. Thus this will be my last post in this sub-forum.


----------



## scout24 (Jun 1, 2018)

Boy I hope so... How about letting folks enjoy what they enjoy without the repetitive deluge of relieving ones self in their Cheerios? Some folks like incans. Some still like oil lamps. Some still like a campfire. Yes, there are more efficient alternatives. Ones that are less maintenance intensive. For God's sake, please stop beating the dead horse. Go for a walk. Get out in the sunshine. Enjoy life for a bit...

Edit- I think this discussion has run it's course, thread closed...


----------

