Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
I'm not exactly certain that this is the single most useful tool in all of human technology. However, still interesting. I will say that LEDs have improved with "warmer" light spectrums, and are certainly cost-effective, but, all other things being equal (they're not), I still prefer the light quality of incandescents. I wonder if this is objective or just a relic of my past lighting experience. For example, when light bulbs first came into prominence, did people denounce their light quality as inferior to candles?

<video controls autoplay loop>
<source src="https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/multi_light_bulb_adapter.mp4" type="video/mp4">
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>
I agree Jon...not overly useful imho either...it speaks to the Mo is Better crowd though. The thing is with incandescence is we had a 100 years of developing the coatings and technologies to get the lighting qualities to roughly 4 shades (temps) which lasted for maybe 40 years...4 generations gets "used" to that and set perhaps in DNA or at least lizard brain¿ Because we brought the tech to a manufacturing bonanza because of quantity and life = cheap it was easy to be/get comfortable especially with all the other tech going on. It's interesting to me the kerfuffle we had with florescent's and 60hz buzz, tired eye and other effects we've "named" since there arrival in mainstream, when Tesla's original likely had none of those effects because of the frequencies and surface effects and yet never took off until 30-40's after GE and Westinghouse finalized the R&D and ran with the production.

I would bet the candle people would have complained for a while, but being able to light a larger space probably changed their minds quickly...yet we still use candles as mood lighting and ambiance.