I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing?
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? I am looking at this in
several ways. It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. So, this could go either way?

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

On Sep 12, 12:56*am, wrote:
I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. *The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing? *
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. *Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? *I am looking at this in
several ways. *It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. *That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. *So, this could go either way? *

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

flashing uses 1/2 the battery power, and yes flashing is hard on
incandescent bulbs filaments, their life is less.

nearly all new lights are LED since battery replacements costs so much

On Sep 12, 12:56*am, wrote:
I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. *The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing? *
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. *Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? *I am looking at this in
several ways. *It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. *That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. *So, this could go either way? *

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

Lamps are rated for their service life in x-number of thousand
hours...
Being constantly on would consume the lamp quickly, but cycling
on and off would eventually also burn it out as it does thermocycle
even in the short time it gets hot compared to being off...

The lifespan of a lamp is also adversely impacted by running at
higher than standard temperatures or where the lamp is subject
to vibration or being jarred... Those x-number of thousand hours
of life are under perfect ideal conditions...

~~ Evan

On Sep 12, 8:15*am, Evan wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:56*am, wrote:





I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. *The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing? *
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. *Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? *I am looking at this in
several ways. *It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. *That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. *So, this could go either way? *

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

Lamps are rated for their service life in x-number of thousand
hours...
Being constantly on would consume the lamp quickly, but cycling
on and off would eventually also burn it out as it does thermocycle
even in the short time it gets hot compared to being off...

The lifespan of a lamp is also adversely impacted by running at
higher than standard temperatures or where the lamp is subject
to vibration or being jarred... *Those x-number of thousand hours
of life are under perfect ideal conditions...

~~ Evan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As good of a non answer as I've ever seen.

On Sep 12, 8:53*am, "
wrote:
On Sep 12, 8:15*am, Evan wrote:



On Sep 12, 12:56*am, wrote:

I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. *The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing? *
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. *Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? *I am looking at this in
several ways. *It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. *That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. *So, this could go either way? *

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

Lamps are rated for their service life in x-number of thousand
hours...
Being constantly on would consume the lamp quickly, but cycling
on and off would eventually also burn it out as it does thermocycle
even in the short time it gets hot compared to being off...

The lifespan of a lamp is also adversely impacted by running at
higher than standard temperatures or where the lamp is subject
to vibration or being jarred... *Those x-number of thousand hours
of life are under perfect ideal conditions...

~~ Evan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As good of a non answer as I've ever seen.

And you didn't even offer any sort of answer, just your opinion on
what I said... Wow, you must not have anything useful to add to
the subject...

~~ Evan

wrote:
I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing?
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]


For safety barricades and the like, amount of electricity consumed or length
of filament life is WAY down on the list of needed features. Some above it
a brightness, dependability, immunity to rain, snow, etc., cost, and
securability.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:11:47 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Sep 12, 12:56Â*am, wrote:
I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. Â*The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing? Â*
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. Â*Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? Â*I am looking at this in
several ways. Â*It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. Â*That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. Â*So, this could go either way? Â*

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

flashing uses 1/2 the battery power, and yes flashing is hard on
incandescent bulbs filaments, their life is less.

nearly all new lights are LED since battery replacements costs so much
A 50% duty cycle uses more than half the power used by a steady
burn, becuae the resistance of a cold (non glowing) filament is
significantly lower than a glowing filament - and a flashing bulb goes
through that phase every time it is turned on.

As for lifespan, every time the filament heats and cools it flexes -
so the flashing bulb life is SIGNIFICANTLY lower in actual on -time.
At a 50% duty cycle the bulb MAY last the same time over-all - or
slightly longer - or slightly less - depending on the construction of
the filament and supports.

Bulbs GENERALLY blow as they are being turned on (due to that low
resistance high current starting surge co-inciding with the flexing
due to thermal expansion / subsidence.

wrote:
I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing?
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]

2. This one is much more puzzling. Will the filament last longer on a
flashing light or one that is on constantly? I am looking at this in
several ways. It would seem that flashing would be hard on those
filaments. That flashing on and off about 40 times a minute seems
like it would beat up that filament.

At the same time, the filaments never really reach full brightness
long enough to develop much heat, so that could possibly make it last
longer because of the decreased heat. So, this could go either way?

I'm sure someone has tested this ...... But who knows the answer?
I do know that of those older C5 and C7 christmas bulbs, both the
regular and the flashing ones seemed to burn out some of each every
year (for whatever that's worth).

Does anyone know the answer?

The flashing will be hard on the bulb, but it doesn't need to be on long to be
seen, so the off time will be larger, and batteries will last longer. The temp,
I expect, would be the same, as the temperature is what makes it bright. Until
it gets hot enough, it makes no light. Christmas bulbs - who worries about
batteries, so they stay on longer.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:18:46 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
I wonder if there is an answer to this?

I was watching one of those flashing battery operated barricades they
put on road construction sites. The bulbs are incandescent, similar
to the bulbs used on taillights on cars. (except the new LED type).

I came up with two questions:

1. Which consumes more electricity, a bulb that is constantly on, or
flashing?
(My thinking says it would be the constant on bulbs would use more
electricity) ??????? [but that's just a guess]


For safety barricades and the like, amount of electricity consumed or length
of filament life is WAY down on the list of needed features. Some above it
a brightness, dependability, immunity to rain, snow, etc., cost, and
securability.


I can see that as accurate, but I was referring to any incandescent
bulb for any use. It's just the barricade that made me ask the
question. Actually we all have taillights in cars that flash, even
though they are not left on for long periods, the filament for the
flasher almost always seems to burn out first on the common 1157
bulbs.