What advances could have come in fire-based lighting technology if electric lights were delayed?

Although gas lamps started to spread from the early 1800s onwards, these early gas lights were open-flame burners that were not much brighter than torches or candles. The bright gas street lamps in which an incandescent mantle, rather than an open flame produces light and which are a bit dimmer than electric street lamps, though are adequate for modern street lighting, and remained operating in some historical city centers, were invented only in the 1880s, concurrently with the electric light bulb. Even the pressurized kerosene lamps like Coleman and Petromax, which produce much more light than an old-fashioned open-flame kerosene lantern were only invented in the 1910s.

Suppose that for whatever reason, the invention or the spread of electric lighting is delayed by some decades.
What technological advances do you think could have come in combustion-based lighting, either gas or kerosene lamps, that would have continued to increase their brightness and convenience of use?
 
It took Edison quite some time to find a material to make the incandescent filament practical. Yes, suppose he never found it. There were other technologies in progress. In 1910, Georges Claude patented the neon tube in Paris, earning the nickname "Edison of France." Without the incandescent light, more attention would shift to electric discharge lighting, and perhaps the fluorescent tube (1935) would have come sooner. The CRT television screen was in development in the twenties and Farnsworth patented the picture tube in 1929. Without the incandescent bulb with its concentrated light source, the big-screen motion picture may never have come along, making way for television parlors instead.

Yes, combustion lighting would have continued longer and improvements would have come sooner. But there was enough work in progress on devices that utilized transformable alternating current, despised by Edison.
 
Top