Talk:Centennial Light

Where is the bulb currently located?

Is the bulb located in Livermore or Pleasanton? They are two separate cities, so the bulb can only be located in one of them. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this source, the bulb is located in Livermore. Any objection to me editing the article accordingly? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Info moved from redirected article:

Livermore, California is noted for one amazing record: a 105+ year old 4-watt lightbulb housed by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department is still burning bright. In truth, its "brightness" may be a matter of debate. It glows dimly, but definitely still functions as a lightbulb. The Guinness Book of World Records, Ripley's Believe It or Not, and General Electric have concluded that the bulb has been burning continuously since 1901 with the exception of power failures and three times for moving to another station. The lightbulb was manufactured by the Shelby Electric Company and was hand blown with a carbon filament.

According to Mrs. Zylpha Bernal Beck (born in 1884), the bulb was donated to the Fire Department by her father, Dennis Bernal in 1901. Mr. Bernal owned the Livermore Power and Water Company and donated the bulb when he sold the company. This story has been supported by several firefighter volunteers of that era.

It originally hung in a garage in downtown Livermore that was used by both the fire and police departments. It was later moved to a newly constructed City Hall that housed both departments. About twenty years later, it was moved to Fire Station #1. It has also been moved between fire stations in 1976 and 1996.

There is a widespread interest in the lightbulb, visitors have come to see it from every state in the Union, and from many foreign countries. The "centennial bulb" has its own webcam keeping a watchful eye on the everpresent dim glow: http://www.centennialbulb.org/cam.htm

Successive fire chiefs have regarded it as their talisman and a good luck charm. Rumour has it that previous chiefs had standing orders that if any firefighter even accidentally broke the light, that person would be fired.

Message from the Bulbs Site's Webmaster

I just received a message from the bulb's webmaster giving permission to use pictures on the site and a few corrections that need to be made to the article. --The_stuart 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stuart,

Great job on your bulb info! As for the pics feel free to use any on the site. We have never charged anyone for use of our shots. Most of them were taken by either Dick Jones, or myself, and other than giving us credit for the shots they are free to the public. If you need anything of a larger resolution just let me know. Most of the pics are at; http://www.centennialbulb.org/photo1.htm

Here's the only differences or additions I've found;

>There is only one other known bulb like it in existence.

Sorry to disappoint but it was just a common very good bulb that was made by Shelby. I bought one myself on ebay last year and have it turned on under the same conditions at my home. According to Sally Maier of the Shelby museum it is the same vintage. See the link below for pics; http://www.centennialbulb.org/shelby-steve.htm

Theres one for sale on ebay right now; http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=009&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBI%3AIT&viewitem=&item=190063944200&rd=1&rd=1

The article you are refering to is the second bulb that had been given to the fire dept in 1901. I was the person who tested it for her, and it works as well.

>It originally hung in 1901 [5]in a garage in downtown Livermore that was used by both the fire and police departments. Later the fire department consolidated. It was moved to a newly constructed City Hall housed 2 departments.

It's hard to say with the murky past, but it looks as though it has probably been in 4 places. According to this news article in 1972;

"Bill Wilson, 85, came to Livermore in 1905. As a new arrival to the small farm community, he was quick to join the ranks of fire-fighting volunteers, battling blazes at Jensen's side.

 But for Wilson, the memories are vague and few of the now famed light.

Wilson couldn't recall just when the old bulb was first put to use.

"I wouldn't know and wouldn't want to hazard a guess," said Wilson. "When the things was put up, nobody gave it a thought at all."

ALTHOUGH TEN years younger than his fellow retired volunteers, John Anderson, 75, recalls the old globe well:

"I passed it every day on my way to school."

"They moved that old bulb to three places," continued Anderson. "First it was in a hose cart house on L Street then in the Second Street fire house; and finally moved to where it's at now (First Street). It don't give much light, but it's a light."

Yet Anderson, like the two older firemen, doesn't recall when the bulb was first put in its socket. "I don't doubt it was put up in 1901," Anderson explained, "but I don't know exact dates." http://www.centennialbulb.org/newsppr3.htm

>In the early 1970s the bulb was noticed by Charles Kurault of the TV >program "On the Road with Charles Kurault". He researched the bulb and other hand blown bulbs and determined the bulbs age.

• • Before Charles Kurault a reporter named Mike Dunstan of the Tri-Valley

Herald did the digging in 1972. Then Charles heard about it became national news. http://www.centennialbulb.org/newsppr3.htm

Ripleys & Guinness Both of the 2007 editions acknowledge the bulb as holding the worlds record. Before that in the 1970's the livermore fire dept applied to Guinness and Ripleys for recognition. Guiness mentioned the bulb as "some evidence" but not conclussive until this year. Then in 1988 they stopped. http://www.centennialbulb.org/guiness.htm

According to Roger Jones of Kent, UK; "I have looked at this further and the first edition that mentions the Bulb at Livermore is the 1972 edition. It also appears to be in every edition up to and including 1988."

>In 1976, the fire department moved to Fire Station #1, and the bulb moved >too. The bulb was only turned off for ten minutes.

• • According to Ret Fire Chief Lynn Owens the original wire was cut, as they

were affraid to unscrew it, and was reconected at station 6 after a full Fire Truck escort across town.

Byron the Bulb

Shouldn't Thomas Pynchon's fictional immortal bulb "Byron", protagonist of "The Story of Byron the Bulb" in Gravity's Rainbow, be mentioned here? --ScottMainwaring 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wattage

Has the bulb's input power ever been measured? It is typically quoted to be 3 - 4 watts. But, based on old catalogs, the bulb appears to be Shelby's 30 watt model.

Some possibilities are:

1) They are cheating by dimming the bulb. 2) The bulb has reduced its power by itself over the years due to wear and tear. 3) It's current brightness equals that of a modern 4 watt night light, regardless of actual wattage.

66.114.93.6 06:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable

Why is this being portrayed as factual when there is no reasonable evidence to support the claim that this bulb has lasted over a century? Looks like a hoax to me. Pw33n 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have seen several nationally televised news stories about the light bulb. That's how I heard about it and looked up this article. There are plenty of credible references in the article to prove that it is not a hoax. Royalbroil 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That'd be like a "super-hoax," I heard about this thing years ago. IvoShandor 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not question the claim itself, since it is a Guinness verified record after all. But is it actually true?
"Evidence suggests that the bulb has hung in at least four locations."
I assume "hung" means not powered in this context. According to the article, those are 1901, 1937, 1976 and 2013. The longest span of these is about 39 years from 1937 to 1976. Not-so-continuously powered light bulb apparently, though... 93.106.177.245 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I believe this article satisfies all GA criteria. I agree that it is not FA-quality, but IMO the objections raised in the two previous FA nominations do not exclude GA status.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are many references to centennialbulb.org, but these are primarily used an online verification of various letters sent to the light bulb. I think this is sufficient for accepting as a WP:RS.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The images are tagged as "public domain" but it's not clear whether the creators intended for this license to be used. For one thing, there should be verification of the email message through OTRS. Also, the owners should explicitly specify what license is allowed for the image (public domain stipulates more than not charging for the images). However, concerning this GAN, I do not see any reason to doubt the fact that the above message was indeed sent from the webmaster of centennialbulb.org, and I don't think this fairly minor issue should delay awarding GA to this article.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--Zvika (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact Request

Is there any research being done to try to maximize the life of modern bulbs based on this, apparently better, old technology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

From the article itself, it doesn't seem that the bulb or its making possess any special qualities. The only factors that are claimed to contribute to the bulb's long life is that A) it's a low power bulb, and B) it's been on almost continuous use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.42.13 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also one major factor is that it has a very thick filament; so it is very unlikely to burn through, but also has a very poor efficiency. Nothing we'd want today ;) --91.89.83.185 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How much light?

Curiously, there is no mention of the light output (luminous flux) of the bulb. Surely that would be an interesting fact, so that we could compare this bulb's luminous efficacy to other light sources (such as regular commercial light bulbs run at nominal voltage). Can anyone locate a source which would mention this? --Jmk (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Bulb.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bulb.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

4 watts once have been 60

According to [[1]], the lamp once consumed 60 watts, so it should have been much lighter then. --46.21.6.140 (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The efficiency of bulbs decreases with age. It most likely still consumes 60 watts and only emits 4 watts of light. On the other hand it could be increasing its internal resistance3 and so only allowing 4 watts to pass through. Incandescent bulbs are not very efficient, being used mainly for their very high light quality, broad spectrum, and continuous output in contrast to other bulbs like LED which are partial spectrum and usually have a very noticeable pulse rate to some people, particularly individuals with medical conditions like nystagmus. 23.236.23.78 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"burning"

There was a change made to the lead to replace "burning" with "on". I reverted it, but accidentally hit enter before I could write my whole summary. I was going to say, "but 'on' didn't mean 'powered on' to me at first read". Chris857 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Oldest lightbulb vs oldest person

It appears the Centennial Light is about the same age as the oldest living person, 117-year-old Chiyo Miyako of Japan, born 2 May 1901. I don't know if this piece of trivia is notable enough to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.199.135.213 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Link To Website Is Missing

The article says the bulb has its own website, but doesn't provide a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.39.49.160 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It's under the External link section: https://www.centennialbulb.org Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Centennial Light

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

short lead. several outstanding inline cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• The problems appear fixable. I'll take a stab at it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have expanded the lead and chipped away at the missing citations. Also added a new section based on more recent sources that weren't available at the time of original promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Remaining cn tags dealt with. This should be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.