And I've heard people talk about banning
incandescent bulbs
entirely.
Indeed...
I don't see what the problem is. There are much
more efficient
methods of lighting,
True-- but irrelevant to the discussion.
This is a use for an incandescent bulb for which its light-generating
properties are secondary to its electrical characteristics (but
nevertheless useful).
Presumably a 144-ohm 100-watt resistor would do, but not as well
because (a) they're much more expensive and (b) they don't provide the
immediate visual indication of current a light bulb does. In some
applications (though probably not current-limiting for devices such as
SMPSUs), they might not do because they don't vary their resistance
depending on current, which incandescent bulbs do.
In addition to compact fluorescent lamps, you can get
LED-based
bulbs, halogen lamps (which still are effectively incandescent, but a
bit better), and various gas-discharge lamps.
...none of which function, electrically, like incandescent bulbs.
4) In my SMPUS
current limiter, for obvious electrical reasons.
Halogen?
Halogens are still incandescent and presumably would be covered by a
ban on incandescent bulbs.
Maybe a properly engineered RL circuit instead of
some
cobbled-together light-bulb current limiter. :)
An incandescent bulb is cheap, easy, simple, damn near foolproof, and
provides immediate visual feedback on how much current it's carrying.
It is probably possible to build a current limiter that provides
immediate visual feedback. I challenge you, or anyone for that matter,
to come up with such a design that is as cheap, easy, simple, and
foolproof as an incandescent bulb. (Well, not cheap once the ban hits,
which is the problem.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B