On 23/12/2018 12:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 12:06:30 +0000, Robin wrote:
>
>> So if such risks with E27 etc were
>> significant I would have thought there'd be clear and unequivocal
>> evidence by now given the length of time they've been in use and the
>> installed base across the world.
>
> You assume the people that mandate change are working for the public
> good. I don't.
I wa not assuming that (or anything). I was looking for data.
>
> One narrative could be the ES design arose because it was the cheapest
> possible to deliver (probably using existing tooling). As it was
> introduced, any evidence of the risk would have been mixed in with other
> factors (given the novelty and rarity of electric lighting).
>
> By the time the risk from lose-arcing bulbs is emerging, there's an
> entire industry resting on their production. Any change is going to
> involve a lot of (shareholders) money.
>
> And that's how things remained.
>
> Of course now we have low energy bulbs, the risk is reduced - maybe
> eliminated. Giving the ES fitting - and the factories that produce for it
> - a competitive edge. Which is why we now see them when they were rare as
> hens teeth in the UK in the 70s and before.
>
> I'll drop my theory in the face of supporting evidence.
>
Oh it's a very nice theory. (But then so were phlogiston and
luminiferous aether). I'd just like some evidence to support it.