It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Conspiracy against Eternal Light

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:24 AM

This lightbulb is known as The Cenntenial Light. It has been noted by General Electric, The Guinness Book of World Records and US Government because its been burning since 108 years.

This light-bulb is called The Eternal Light because it has been burning since 1908.

This is an older picture of the Mangum Bulb which worked 80 years ago and is still working today.

These are three examples only. Coupled with the fact that bulbs last thousands of hours more in other countries not subject to our standards, has led some to believe that there is a Conspiracy to lower the Lifetime of a bulb by Manufacturers, in order to ensure profit for themselves at the expense of the public.

Thomas Edison, the first mass-producer of the Lightbulb, may himself have believed that Lightbulbs could shine on indefinitely.*

It was the Phoebus Cartel (General Electric, Osram, Philips) which set the standards of mass manufacture, so it would be them that are behind the Conspiracy.

There are rumours of people having tried to break the standard set by the Phoebus Cartel having been killed. One such rumour is that of German Inventor Dieter Binninger of which no English Wiki-Page is available yet. In the 90s, a movie on his lifes work and his inventions was made.

In 1991 Binninger bought a small lightbulb-manufacturing company in order to begin with the production of what he called "an eternal lightbulb" that had been patented. Only a few days after the purchase he died in a plane crash of mysterious circumstances.

Do you think there is any truth to the Light-Bulb Conspiracy Theory?

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:36 AM
I just checked on SNOPES, to make sure, and this is confirmed as TRUE there.

Almost looks like free-energy to me.

The strange thing about all this is that you can hardly find anything on it in the Internet. You`d suppose that scientists would be all over the bulbs with research-teams and publications...

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:37 AM
A little help to those who want to read about Dieter Binninger, just google his name and click on "translate the page."

This is certainly a thought...a light-bulb conspiracy...I love it!

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:43 AM
Interesting stuff. I remember reading something about this a few years back and although I couldn't find the exact article I read, i found one that talks about the same issue, Ceravision.

UK Company, Ceravision, have created a new bulb design that doesn’t use electrodes, so cannot burn out. It uses a magnetometer to bombard a small piece of aluminum oxide with microwaves to create an electrical field. Gas is then passed into a hole in the aluminium, in order to ionise it and create a glowing plasma.

Upon some reading on the Ceravision wiki page, I found some interesting connections to Tesla.

Ceravision is a privately owned lighting company based in Bletchley Park, UK Ceravision is the inventor of a range of electrodeless lamps and integrated luminaires...

Electrodeless lamps have been recognized, since Nikola Tesla filed his original patent in 1894, as having a number of advantages:

* No electrodes to break - so potentially very long life
* No chemical degradation of the electrodes - so much lower lumen loss and discoloration during life
* No reactive metal inside the bulb - so the ability to use much more efficient fill materials

So I did some more digging and I found US patent 454622, Tesla's patent.

It makes for some interesting reading. Here's just an excerpt I typed up:

"In other words, I have made the discovery that an electrical current of an excessively small period and very high potential may be utilized economically and practicably to great advantage for the production of light."

This rabbit hole is probably very deep, but I think it's safe to say that the technology has been known for well over a century and that the current state of it's (light bulb) existence is being constricted in order for monetary gain.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:03 AM
I have always been of the mind that we could produce many things that would last longer, work more efficiently and break down less. However in a consumer culture where profit margins must increase like clockwork, I am not surprised that we don't see them. If I could purchase one set of light bulbs for my home, shingle the roof of said home only once in my lifetime or anything else that, currently, requires money thrown at it regularly to keep it going, than many companies would be screwed.

I may be wrong but I seem to recall the term for this is: Planned Obsolescence

I would love to see a shift in the way we live/ why we produce things but in a consumer world, these types of inventions are garanteed a quick death

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:34 AM
Definitely agree with you here...

Unfortunately, it's so obvious why manufacturers do this though, what would be the economic validity in making a product that lasted a lifetime?

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by serbsta

Good stuff. From the article:

A UK firm has developed a bulb that is more than 3 times as efficient as CFL bulbs and will burn brightly for decades. They claim that it will burn for so long that the building or appliance that contains it will wear out before the bulb does.

I believe them that their bulb will burn that long. But Im still wondering what made conventional bulbs burn that long and why I cant find any investigation on it.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by thebulldog

Great, I just learned a new word: Planned Obsolescence

Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] is the process of a product becoming obsolete and/or non-functional after a certain period or amount of use in a way that is planned or designed by the manufacturer.[1] Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because the product fails and the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence. [1] The purpose of planned obsolescence is to hide the real cost per use from the consumer, and charge a higher price than they would otherwise be willing to pay (or would be unwilling to spend all at once).

I didnt know there is an official use and rationale behind what Id personally consider to be a criminal act.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 11:47 AM
From the same page (I cant believe this is commonplace. How naive have I been?)

If marketers expect a product to become obsolete they can design it to last for a specific lifetime. For example, if a product will be technically or stylistically obsolete in five years, many marketers will design the product so it will only last for that time. This is done through a technical process called value engineering.

Software companies are sometimes thought to deliberately drop support for older technologies as a calculated attempt to force users to purchase new products to replace those made obsolete

Planned systemic obsolescence is the deliberate attempt to make a product obsolete by altering the system in which it is used in such a way as to make its continued use difficult. For example, new software is frequently introduced that is not compatible with older software.

this artificially limits the life of the battery. The IC will not permit the device to charge the battery any more than the IC dictates. Production of these batteries is usually stopped at around the same time the product is discontinued,[citation needed] therefore rendering the product worthless once the batteries start to wear out.

Some companies have developed a version of obsolescence in which the product informs the user when it is time to buy a replacement.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
I have the experience of a good example !!

When I was a young boy, about 6 or 7 years old.
My grandparents bought a new tv and they gave me there old one.

I wil discribe it for you.
The tv is a colour tv. To switch the channel you would have to get out of your seat and push one of the 12 buttons, placed on the tv.
You wil have to find the correct frequency manualy. For each button there is some sort of dial, you wil have to twist around to tune for the channel you want to asign to that button.

I used it for playing videogames and later also for wathing tv.

Every tv I owned after it, broke. Minimum lifespan, about 5 years.
However my first tv stil works perfectly !! I have never had any maintenence or cleaning or whatever, spend on it.

Amazing right !!!!?

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

"The way the used to build em"

I think the technique is especially being exploited with laptops

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:41 PM
On Edison

Edison and the Eternal Light Thomas Edison designed a bulb that was supposed to last forever, called the Eternal Light, and turned it on on October 22, 1929. The bulb is located in the Memorial Tower at the Edison Memorial Museum in Menlo Park, New Jersey. The tower fell down in 1937, but the bulb's power was supposedly uninterrupted, according to General Electric, and continued to burn while a second tower was constructed. According to museum curator Jack Stanley, the bulb is fake, consisting of a hollow bulb illuminated by a series of automobile headlights mounted in the display's base.[3]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:52 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

I think the technique is especially being exploited with laptops

...And cars.

They might be safer but most modern cars won't last past 10-15 years.

Thanks for the read!

[edit on 2/1/10 by Chadwickus]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 06:01 PM
Well, so there seems to be a genuine CONSPIRACY here, but since nothing more is known about it I have nothing more to write about it. Thats why the light-bulb-CT does not get much press in the first place.


posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

i wonder what the filament is made of?

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 06:48 PM
This is not the only Edison bulb. There are others. I read about this years ago when I first became aware of it. I want to say, and this is going to sound crazy...but I remember there was bamboo involved somehow in the filament.
Yes, one of the cheapest and most prolific plants on the planet.

Another asset to the Edison bulbs, in caretaking, is they are never switched off. Most of the "blowing" of bulbs, and wear, occurs during the on/off process.

But oh definitely yes. There is a lightbulb conspiracy, no doubt about it.

[edit on 1/2/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

That's true, the current spike created by the sudden turning on or off may be enough to destroy the filament of a light bulb.

Also, there is no secret about making eternal light bulbs, you just have to make a less efficient light bulb that burns less brightly than the others, or by using it a lower voltage than normal.

That way the filament works at a lower temperature, making the evaporation of the filament slower or non-existent.

PS: light bulbs get darker because of the evaporation of the metal in the filament.

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 02:16 PM
I reckon a similar conspiracy regards battery-life.

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:32 PM
landing strips for alien craft have to be lit with high Lux extremely long life lamps.
I wonder if Binninger was actually disappeared or abducted by aliens with the plane crash used as a cover story?
The search engines still aren't leading to any new revelations, its almost as if someone is grooming out information.

Its not just classified alien technical details being removed, I recently tried searching Google keywords "Goethe Faust nom de plume "ein Christlich Meynender" and there was only one entry returned?

edit on 20-3-2015 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:26 PM
a reply to: Skyfloating

My husband and I were just debating this exact premise this morning.

He wants to get a power drill for some small, at home projects and was lamenting the nature of the new cordless drills on the market and the high costs of such devices. Not to mention the devil-may-care nature of the battery life for such things. I asked him why he was so against the old cordless drills and suddenly he stopped ranting and was amazed at himself for forgetting.

You have to understand, this man has made simple tools by hand his entire life for various projects and it was a beautiful moment when he returned to what I consider a sane perspective. He hates marketers, knows about planned obsolescence, and somehow completely forgot the fact that there are still other options out there than the big push technologies.

Strange things are indeed afoot at the Circle K.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in