So are fused Incandescent lights something exclusive to the 240V world? or are there fused incandescents for 120V? I hear that the fuses are there to keep them from popping, is that even necessary on a 120V mains bulb?

With maybe the exception of very small incandescent (such as Christmas mini lights), I believe they are all fused. Usually the fuse is hidden somewhere such as in the stem, and they are not always readily visible. Incandescent lamp EOL is more violent on 230V, however.

That said, I might be wrong. Others feel free to say so if required.

I believe they are used in non-low voltage bulbs whenever a fill gas (such as argon) is used.  I believe they weren't necessary for vacuum bulbs.

Yes, makes sense. With argon filling, you have way more potential for an arc upon EOL. Since this is an unballasted arc, it continues to draw more and more current until the fuse blows. With vacuum, I don't believe the vacuum to be strong enough and the 120V to have enough potential to strike any significant arc in there so the need for a fuse is not really there.

Mini incandescent Christmas lights need a fuse in the plug because as they burn out and the shunts operate, the current in all other lamps increase. When you get to the last half of the lamps working (if the other half is EOL and the shunts have shorted them out), you get twice the voltage in each one, sending all of them to EOL at once. Since 100% of the lamps have shorted shunts, you have a dead short and the fuse in the plug blows. This is different from your original question, though.

Generally even here in UK cheap bulbs tend not to have fuses even 60 or 100 watt bulbs done have them but if you buy from a better manufacturer they will have fuses I bought some cheap 15 watt pygmy bulbs there lifetime was short and when they went EOL they took out a 3 amp Plugtop fuse so the ones I got now I paid nearly twice the money but believe me its worth it. Incident in the UK they are known as Ballotini fuses not sure what you guys in USA call them

The lamps have to have fuses, but using just thin lead wires immersed in the cement holding the glass to the socket is sufficient, provided the cement filling process is under control and does not yield air pockets. But that is the problem - if the plasma from one fusing wire meet thee plasma from the other one via someair pocket, the result is just one single arc across the mains input and not three in series (one within the bulb, plus two in place of the former lead in wires) as originally designed.
Because the cement is not that easy material to get the required fill (the main problem is to completely fill even the stem till the seals), many makers opt to use separate fuse tubes filled with arc quenching material(usually small balls, hence ballotini fuses). These tend to contain and quench the arc within these tubes, so the need for precise filling is removed.
But if you happen to live in an area with high short circuit currents (low impedance feed), the currents could bebeyond what these fuses are able to quench and you still have an exploding lamp problem.

At 120V the problem is way smaller, because there is way smaller voltage overhead over the cathode drop in the arcs, so these extinguish way easier, so usually the lamp just stops working withou any "effects"...

The fusing typically found in 120V gasfilled incandescent lamps is that one of the lead in wires is very thin.

So are fused Incandescent lights something exclusive to the 240V world? or are there fused incandescents for 120V? I hear that the fuses are there to keep them from popping, is that even necessary on a 120V mains bulb?

It's my understanding that the fuse is there to limit the life of the bulb so that after a certain amount of hours it will burn out.

It's my understanding that the fuse is there to limit the life of the bulb so that after a certain amount of hours it will burn out.

The filament will do that by itself, the fuse is to stop it going bang, when the filament does burn out.

It's my understanding that the fuse is there to limit the life of the bulb so that after a certain amount of hours it will burn out.

I doubt they could do that.. unless the fuse would somehow deteriorate when current runs through it... which i would guess woud somehow involve heat .. which means it'd have no point really, since the filament does that itself.

It is possible to make an intentionally bad filament to reduce the life of a lamp. That is planned obsolescence. Happens all the time, not just for lamps.

As for an unfused lamp on 2x0V, if it arcs when the filament breaks, the arc is unballasted and it will rise the current until a breaker trips or a fuse blows in the distribution board. It can also lead to the main protector (breaker or fuse) to operate as well. If such fault happens at night, you have to fumble in the dark to fix the problem, which is a very big inconvenient. I suppose the same could happen on 120V mains, but it is quite rare.

It is possible to make an intentionally bad filament to reduce the life of a lamp. That is planned obsolescence.

And that is like Yetti: Everyone is talking about it and no one have ever seen one...

With the incandescents there is rather simple relation: Either you operate the lamp hotter to get more light for the same power, but then you have to accept shorter life. And vice versa, if you want long life, you have to run the filament colder, but then your efficacy will suffer a lot. You can not have bothat the same time, that is physically not possible. Unless you somewhat change the lamp concept (different gas fill,...). So you have to attain some compromise, either for the lowest total cost alone (that is for less than 200hour life for standard incandescents) or you somewhat weight the inconvenience/problems related to burned lamp replacement (yielding about 750 to 1000hours for home use, till 6..10khours median life for hi rel service (signals,...).

And with the othe products it is the same: The longevity is traded for low manufacturing cost. Compare to the past the todayknowledge about al,the aging mechanisms allows the things to be really cost optimized just for the given required duration, so at that time the thing really starts to fail inthe real life. Many things is possible to make either longer lasting and/or replaceable, but that would cost mlre to produce. And when the market attitude is so the thing gets replaced by most users after certain time anyway (fixtures with home remodelling after 10 years or so, smart phone after two years,...), the things are just designed to bethe cheapest and to last just that period.

And that is like Yetti: Everyone is talking about it and no one have ever seen one...

With the incandescents there is rather simple relation: Either you operate the lamp hotter to get more light for the same power, but then you have to accept shorter life. And vice versa, if you want long life, you have to run the filament colder, but then your efficacy will suffer a lot. You can not have bothat the same time, that is physically not possible. Unless you somewhat change the lamp concept (different gas fill,...). So you have to attain some compromise, either for the lowest total cost alone (that is for less than 200hour life for standard incandescents) or you somewhat weight the inconvenience/problems related to burned lamp replacement (yielding about 750 to 1000hours for home use, till 6..10khours median life for hi rel service (signals,...).

And with the othe products it is the same: The longevity is traded for low manufacturing cost. Compare to the past the todayknowledge about al,the aging mechanisms allows the things to be really cost optimized just for the given required duration, so at that time the thing really starts to fail inthe real life. Many things is possible to make either longer lasting and/or replaceable, but that would cost mlre to produce. And when the market attitude is so the thing gets replaced by most users after certain time anyway (fixtures with home remodelling after 10 years or so, smart phone after two years,...), the things are just designed to bethe cheapest and to last just that period.

It's quite sad really, Gone are the days of quality ey? (for the most part)

It's quite sad really, Gone are the days of quality ey? (for the most part)

The thing is, all the stuff used to be a proffessional only equipment costing 1000s became just a consumer thing sold for few dollars. So the quality does not correspond to  what someone would expect from a $1000 device, but is what someone would expect from a $10 dirt.
And dont be too pessimistic about the modern things: $10 dirt was way worse quality in the past than it is now. It is just many more types of goods have fallen into that category now, nothing else...
And you may see the opposite happening as well: Things that were just a everywhere present cheap made dirt became replaced with different devices for the real life, so for nostalgic use the replicas are today made with way more care and way better quality than were the originals. But the cost is way higher too. Just because the are not anymore the cheap common things, but special, significant things.

For some devices this is correct. Take for example circuit breakers, the ones made in the last 20 years are greatly better than the ones made 30+ years ago in terms of breaking capacity and safety (no big gap around the handle for sparks to fly out, ....) and probably cost less than the 30 year old ones

For some devices, the expensive version used to be the default one available, while now the cheaper is the default one, if not the only available one. In which case it is not fair to say that things improved, as they might have improved but which one of them is actually available to buy changed