Re: 20W Class A Amp in SC
Patrick Turner
Phil Allison wrote:
>
> "Patrick Turner"
>
> >
> > Nobody seems to have produced kit details for a class D or PWM amp kit
> > and with SMPS.
> >
> > Too hard?
> >
> > Such things look set to eclipse all class A and AB solid state amps
> > during the next
> > 10 years, and in fact greenhouse concerns will underline the transition.
> >
>
> ** If that ever happens - all domestic valve amps will be totally banned
> from sale.
....Along with lava lamps and the lightbulbs needed to make them work.
Heard in a court near you,
"And why did you so flagrantly continue to use vacuum tubes
after the Green Police had issued you with a Tube Use Restraint
Declaration, ( T.U.R.D )?"
"Well ya honner, I gort fuckin cold in July, and we wuz so
much in debt when the heater broke, we hauled out the amps to keep warm"
"And did you play music on these amps?"
"Corse not"
"Have you insulated your home using the Labour Government Insulation
Grant Scheme?"
"Fk'noath y'onner."
"Case dismissed. Aforesaid amplifiers were not used improperly
for musical enjoyment at risk to the environment. Considering the
plaintiffs
family and financial situation, the use of items KT88 and 12AX7
exhibited in the court
constitue a function of the conservation of energy, and would as
effective and
permissible as the one bar radiator used prior to the alleged offence."
"Gees your'e a good bloke mate, wanna lift ome in me 76 Statesman?"...
In the fine print of the Budget Papers, John Bloward, aka Light on the
Hill, Araldite Pants,
Non Core Promiser etc, has formed a new department,
the Department Of Pleasure and Entertainment, ( D.O.P.E )
Inspectors will have warrants to enter ppls homes to remove vacuum
tubes,
and arrest or give on the spot fines for anyone enjoying themselves.
The limitations of activities outside the normal working hours is to
ensure ppl
are up bright and early to work to pay for the budget largesse
because it wasn't intended to ever be free, and because the AWAs were
meant to
abolish leisure.
Bill Hefernan and Wilson Tuckey are to jointly administer the new Dept
with a special emphasis on targetting tube enthusiasts who fornicate
furiously
while never trying to have children, thus ruining a nice economy.
Watch out Julia, and hope they all vote for Ruddy Buggles.
Patrick Turner.
>
> ...... Phil
Engineer
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Patrick, thanks for the laugh!
Our lot are planning to ban tungsten light bulbs by 2012, replacing
them with compact flourescents - those spirally things that make
people look dead!.
Cheers,
Roger
Toronto, Canada.
Phil Allison
"Engineer"
> Patrick, thanks for the laugh!
> Our lot are planning to ban tungsten light bulbs by 2012, replacing
> them with compact flourescents - those spirally things that make
> people look dead!.
> Cheers,
> Roger
> Toronto, Canada.
** See:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
http://www.execulink.com/~impact/fluorescent_lights.htm
Good bedtime reading.
Sweat dreams .....
....... Phil
Patrick Turner
I use the lowest power Compact Flouro Lamp of about 15 W rated in a
light
over the back step to the back door, and it lasts maybe 3 years after
being on all time mostly.
So I don't trip in the dark coming back into the house after being in
the shed all day.
The incandescent lamps, ILs, last about 3 months max in the same
location.
I tried CF lams in the bathroom, but the moisture fucked 'em real soon,
so back to
ILs, which last only so long.
ILs used to last a lot longer than they do now and I suspect one reason
is because they are made in China
where manufacturing tolerances are shithouse standard, and there is a
fuctard reluctance to actually
put in the needed quality of anything into any product to ensure it
lasts.
The other reason is that in China the mains voltage is 220V ( on a
really good day when VA load is low ).
So everything is "designed" to run 220V. The chinese IL are imported and
are plugged in here to
cop our typical 250V much of the time, so they appear to work real well
but they don't last
and could be running too hot.
I have noticed 40watt Chinese made soldering irons costing about $20
last one month
on normal mains connection, but where I limit the voltage to 210V they
last well over a year.
So I have a bunch of resistors in a box in series with the soldering
irons
where i plug in the iron.
So I could perhaps extend IL life by having series resistances, but that
means wasting power in resistances.
So the simple answer to extended IL life is to include a large 250V :
210V tranny for the light circuit of the house.
The reduction in light might be 25%, but who cares if the IL then lasts
4 times longer?
A 60W IL now goes 1,000 hours and uses 60kWH costing me $6 in
electricity.
If the IL costs $1, total cost is $7.
if I get the IL to last 4,000 hrs, the saving is 75c.
Clearly the electricty cost to run the IL far outweighs the IL price.
If I got the IL to last longer with a transformer to drop the voltage,
it would take ages before the
cost of installing the tranny are recouped in IL purchase costs.
But it all adds up, and maybe I buy 20 IL per annum, and maybe that's
reducable to 4,
so there is $16 per annum savable, and over 10 years its $160.
So I have not bothered to install a 1 kW light circuit transformer,
and continue to swear at the fucking chinese
for building such rotten short lived ILs.
Thge cost of the 1kwH required to make the IL in china is negligble.
The largest cost of an IL is the profits and taxes and storage and
handling
in the distribution chain between China and here.
Lotsa middle men involved, each one requiring a standard of living, each
one
producing greenhouse emissions.
My lighting costs are minimal and are only 10% of my total electricity
bill.
The majority costs are due to heating bath water, air, and cooking,
fridge,
and making coffee, and running a PC.
Even though I have some class A amps, they ain't on much, and I don't
watch TV.
So when fuckwit governments decree that we must all switch to CPF
everyehere,
and thus reduce lighting bills by say 70%, the reduction of my total
bills will be a very small amount, and the reduction in green house
effects less than 5%,
and utterly negligible.
Governments are eager to
BE SEEN TO BE DOING THE RIGHT THING EVEN THOUGH THE PLANET MOVES TOWARDS
DOOMDOM.
Sorry folks, but banning light bulbs won't save the Planet.
Money saved by ppl not spending on IL costs will be spent elsewhere on
goods
and services which place even more pressure on the environment to
deliver
the western world's lifestyle to all the world's ppl.
Even if we had virtually costless electricity, and completely CO2 free
electricity,
and all transport and industry/home energy use was enviro friendly, then
humanity and hu-womanity
will merely rape the world's environment with much accelerated vigour as
everyone
has the money to buy bigger houses and cars et all, and employ more
folks with
bigger chainsaws to cut down trees to build the houses, etc.
We all want to live like kings and queens.
Expect the rain forests of the Amazon to be felled completely within a
decade or two.
Ditto in all of SE Asia.
Expect most rare species to be extinct very soon.
Total solutions need to be undertaken to fix the problem of humans being
on this Planet.
Just fixing up lighting side effects is window dressing, and is way too
little a response to a far greater
emerging problem of AFFLUENZA.
I can't change anything. I only have a vote, and anyone proposing major
changes
could never get elected.
The change that's needed WORLD WIDE isn't at all
electorally acceptable by the vast majority of ppl who
want to solve the problem with the Egyptian Solution - of
remaining in denial.
Is there is a problem at all? Hell, ppl have always had a problem to
face, so SNAFU, eh?
Or if there is one, it will just go away, or will be solved in 100 years
time.
Meanwhile, let's live it up, and let the grand kids work it all out
later.
WTF is carbon trading?
its all farnarcling around with music pages for the band while the
Titanic sinks.
And you can betcha balls that carbon trading means Joe Average will be
hit
hard in the pocket; WTF does Joe Average have that he can sell to get
ahead in a carbon market?
Maybe if he gets sterilized irreversably at age 16, he should claim
payment from others because he won't
ever be adding to a problem by having more kids. Pigs will fly before
such credits are ever given.
Being sterilized by ball removal at 8 would be more tradeable, because
not only will there
be no kids, he could sing operas pretty well, as a castrati, and provide
sexual service to women
not wanting to take the Pill. But he'd have to sign a document saying he
wouldn't
addopt children if he got rich which is as planetorially as bad as
having your own.
Getting rich must also become an absolutely despicable, mean, criminal
activity punishable
with long periods in jail doing hard labour, eg, joining in the
jail based research team to develop new technologies and be forced into
useful physical
exercize by work in chain gangs planting trees.
I am being absurd of course, but there isn't any easy way out of the
problem.
Women of course should also claim carbon benefits from sterilization,
adjusted up a bit because their opera singing abilities don't increase.
It seems to me though women stay away from blokes as they become more
educated.
Their fascination with cocks is shortlived, and they see what men do to
the world.
Perhaps 35% of females born now in Oz will never marry or give birth.
The drift to less births will surely have more effect than less IL.
We have stupid people running around in Oz saying we must
change lamps and reduce the greenhouse emissions to reduce temperatures
and bring back more favourable climates where it rains more often.
Although greenhouse emissions per capita in Oz are truly attrocious by
world standards,
Oz is a tiny little fartarse nation whose climate is dependant on what
the
majority of 6 billion other folks do.
We should be showing the world the way how to do low emissions, but it
means
much higher energy costs, ie, far bigger electricity bills and all other
costs.
Cheap and non polluting energy is not yet anywhere near available, and
nobody
wants to vote for a huge decline in the standard of living.
The majority of the 6 billion ppl outside Oz is now frantically working
to give itself standards of living we take for granted, and while the
Planet could sustain 1 billion western lifestylers I doubt seriously
it will sustain an additional 5 billion, and then
allow a further additional doubling of global population in 35 years.
By then everyone will be educated well enough to not be attracted to
the pointless exercize of having children very often, and the population
should stabilize
to just being too many people anyway, rather than possibly being any
worse.
We desperately want a New Redeemer, to teach us ways of evolving
genetically into a creature which eats its own garbage, thrives on
breathing in its C02,
while farting out lots of O2, and solving all its personal problems of
sustainability.
Redeemers are rare creatures, and often misinterpreted while here, and
certainly afterwards, like Jesus and Mohommad.
Einstein was popular, but we got saddled with nuclear, and all the waste
of the arms race.
I think our species will dominate everything completely and reduce the
natural diversity
by 20dB at least in the next 100 years, and what happens in another
1,000 years
at the present rates of change looks rather challenging to our species,
IMHO.
Patrick Turner
Eiron
> ILs used to last a lot longer than they do now and I suspect one reason
> is because they are made in China
> where manufacturing tolerances are shithouse standard, and there is a
> fuctard reluctance to actually
> put in the needed quality of anything into any product to ensure it
> lasts.
>
> The other reason is that in China the mains voltage is 220V ( on a
> really good day when VA load is low ).
> So everything is "designed" to run 220V. The chinese IL are imported and
> are plugged in here to
> cop our typical 250V much of the time, so they appear to work real well
> but they don't last
> and could be running too hot.
In anticipation of the European Union ban on filament lamps I stocked up
with sufficient decent ones to last a lifetime. If you buy a few dozen
from an online supplier they are as cheap as the supermarket bulbs, they
actually work at 240v and are far more reliable.
(Of course I use fluorescent lamps where appropriate.)
And if I have any left over in a few years time I can sell them
at vast prices, along with my stocks of non-RoHS lead solder.
Such a pity I forgot to buy V15s and 300Bs when they were cheap. :-)
--
Eiron.
May contain traces of irony.
Trevor Wilson
"Engineer" <analo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1179018157....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
**I suggest you look at the Philips branded lamps. Nice colour balance.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
kreed
Most of the Australian women who do breed, breed with the lowest form
of garbage that they can lay their hands on anyway. Violent, drunk,
druggies are their dream root.
Until someone proposes lowering the population dramatically
(preferably by lowering the birth rate, especially in the feral
classes), I agree that all the rest of the crap the governments are
doing and the "greenhouse debate" generally is nothing but hot air,
and a costly waste of time, and money for the average person that in
the end will achieve little net gain.
Any gains that have ever been made by increasing energy efficiency
(ie, modern cars compared to 40 yr ago, modern lighting and
electronics) have all been more than wiped out by constant un-
necessary population increase.
The only country thats done anything about the population problem is
China.
Friday
> Most of the Australian women who do breed, breed with the lowest form
> of garbage that they can lay their hands on anyway. Violent, drunk,
> druggies are their dream root.
>>
It's obvious you're saying that because you're a virgin and can't get a
root.
kreed
Its obvious that you are wrong ;)
Patrick Turner
> Most of the Australian women who do breed, breed with the lowest form
> of garbage that they can lay their hands on anyway. Violent, drunk,
> druggies are their dream root.
Where did you get this stupid idea?
> > I think our species will dominate everything completely and reduce the
> > natural diversity
> > by 20dB at least in the next 100 years, and what happens in another
> > 1,000 years
> > at the present rates of change looks rather challenging to our species,
> > IMHO.
> >
> > Patrick Turner
>
> Until someone proposes lowering the population dramatically
> (preferably by lowering the birth rate, especially in the feral
> classes), I agree that all the rest of the crap the governments are
> doing and the "greenhouse debate" generally is nothing but hot air,
> and a costly waste of time, and money for the average person that in
> the end will achieve little net gain.
>
> Any gains that have ever been made by increasing energy efficiency
> (ie, modern cars compared to 40 yr ago, modern lighting and
> electronics) have all been more than wiped out by constant un-
> necessary population increase.
>
> The only country thats done anything about the population problem is
> China.
Perhaps too little will be done too late.
But the best thing to get people to not breed so fast is education.
In all the well educated countries, population growth is low, and
maybe less than 1.5 children per woman average, and population is
declining.
Having women attain fully equal rights with males is also very
important.
People learn that study and work is more interesting than the agonies of
bringing up kids
who won't necessarily look after you in your old age.
They learn that the egotism involved in having a large family
that one can be proud of is just another stupid BS notion of vanity.
They learn to question everything around them, rather than just accept
it all,
with all the social injustices and BS.
But I got a bunch of these new energy efficient lightbulbs to reduce my
power bills by
5% and I feel better.
Patrick Turner.
J.P.
wrote:
Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the house
down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
suck!
It will sell for $10...MMM
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
> supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
> is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
> provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the house
> down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
> suck!
> It will sell for $10...MMM
What comic did you read about that in ?
Graham
Patrick Turner
> >The only country thats done anything about the population problem is
> >China.
> Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
> supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
> is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
> provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the house
> down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
> suck!
> It will sell for $10...MMM
The problem is that the price of $10 has to be earned.
So the greenhouse gases released during the earning of the $10
to buy ONE lousy light bulb might well exceed the savings in GH gases
over what might be a more realistic life time of 12,000 hours,
based on people dropping the damn things, using them in bathrooms and
damp places,
etc, and leaving them turned on because they think they don't waste much
power.
30 LED lights in my place would cost me $300, being about equal to my
winter power bill.
30 ordinary incandescent lamps are $30.
About 8% maybe of my bills are due to IL. Maybe another 5% for long
strip flouros in my shed.
So my IL cost me $24 to run over winter, or about $70 per year.
If I replace all the IL once a year, its $30, so total cost of IL is
$100 per year.
If I spend $300 on the IL, and they last say 10 times longer than the
IL,
and use less than 10% of the electrical power, then its $30 for purchase
+ $7 for power,
so its $37 per anum to run LEDs, so it saves me $66 per anum or 0.18
cents per day,
which isn't a really huge amount!
Even if lighting cost ZERO to run and purchase, the savings to anyone is
minimal,
and negligible compared to the major uses of power causing greenhouse
gases.
Greenhouse gas emissions will only fall if there is a total switch to
nuclear, solar, wave, wind etc,
and ALL fossil oil and coal buring is abandoned for home heating and
cooling, industrial and transport use.
This would have a long term benefit because in 2,000 years we still will
probably want oil.
and at current rates of use it will all be well and truly gone by then.
Nobody wants to think about what happens when the fossil fuels all run
out, or costs us
50 times more to get from the ground.
The fossil deposits will be at needed at least for all manner of future
chemical and plastic production.
At present I cannot see major airlines and transports converting their
jet planes and
huge B-double trucks to hydrogen power with the H2 produced by
electrolysis of H2O.
Its going to take a long time to change the world's zillions of cars to
H2.
I do see that every solution we think up to ease a problem creates
another a bit further along.
We never seem to be able to afford to make the step to a solution with
no
ongoing problems.
Fossil fuel based economies and ways of life worked just fine on a
planet while 10%
of the haves had the benefits of the fossils. But when 12 billion become
haves and all leap
to the betterments of the fossils, then we have too much of a good
thing,
and pity help us.
The history of many societies is one where at first the village, then
the town, then the city
was all sustainable with only horse power and human power.
But eventually the surrounding country around these cities became
barren, and resources took
too much effort to bring to the cities and they mainly failed.
The roads and trucks and ships bring food anywhere any time, but even
with the
amplified transporting ability fossil fuels provide, and amplified
farming methods,
there is a limit to how long the whole shebang can stand up before
it all becomes impossible to sustain even without population growth.
Everything would be just fine if we had 100 Earths all waiting in space
to move out to once we wear out this one.
They ain't there though. Here is all we have.
Iraq used to be the cradle of civilisation, a fertile balmy place that
much favoured the dawning of civilisations.
Look at it now. Its basically phuct. Its soils have about the worst
salinity problems of anywhere.
The only thing of worth there is the oil.
That's why there is a war going on there.
We really need to be able to go inside everyone's head, and to where the
wires to the
part of the brain are marked "power supply for wish and want
department".
We get out the pair of small side cutters, and snip the wires, and
everyone thus treated is then quite happy without wanting all this shit
we now
think makes us happier, but doesn't.
The wires to "needs department" can be left intact.
Frankly I think Affluenza will kill the planet eventually for us,
and perhaps in a million years after we are gone and the damage heals or
settles down,
something else will evolve, and maybe they'll repeat what we done,
or get a longer run because they didn't want too much too soon.
Maybe the atmosphere will be mainly steam, because all the oceans will
have boiled.
Everything we have ever made will eventually be disolved and
re-distributed.
There are legions of ppl who don't give a shit about the environment
because we are supposedly
all God's People, and Judgment Day is due soon, and all will be fine
after the Kingdom of God
is established here forever for the Believers, and after Satan's people
have been banished.
What do the religious fundementalists have to say about endless
consumption
of goods and services? do they believe in miracles?
Patrick Turner.
Eeyore
Patrick Turner wrote:
> > >The only country thats done anything about the population problem is
> > >China.
> > Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
> > supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
> > is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
> > provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the house
> > down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
> > suck!
> > It will sell for $10...MMM
>
> The problem is that the price of $10 has to be earned.
The real problem is that there is no such product and there's not going to be
for a long, long time, if ever.
"60 watts of light" for 3.5W indeed ! I assume the idiot means '60W worth of
incandescent light' for 3.5W.
Graham
Patrick Turner
Well, some guys here have used LED based lights mounted on their safety
helmets
for mountian bike races that go for 24 hours.
The light the LED put out is remarkably bright and the batteries last
remarkably long
for the riders compared to using ILs.
The lights they use do need heatsinks....another solid state hot
solution....
I determined what the benefits might be for me if 60 watt brightness LED
lamps were
available for $10, and used only 3.5 watts of electrical power each, and
calculated its 0.18 cents per day.
This saving by everyone won't save the world.
If lighting was free, ie, cost nothing to run or buy, the greenhose
effect would
continue without much change IMHO.
If I swap all my vacuum tube gear for digital SS amps, ditto, the world
will not be saved.
Patrick Turner.
J.P.
Saw it on Discovery channel two weeks ago...
J.P.
Evidently you have never flown over Dallas Texas at night and seen the
huge amount of power wasted on lights in the city...this LED kick is
going to go somewhere and catch on. They will end up costing $1 each
down the road.The help is not in your small shack nor in mine but in
businesses that burn 10000 lights 24/7 it will make a big difference
or in 10 000 000 000 shacks that use them....lights are a big user of
energy. And no I do not hug trees nor fuck hippys...
J.P.
When you say idiot asshole..you best be looking in the fucking
mirror..
J.P.
The heat factor has been dealt with in these lights already. Just keep
watching the shelves and by Xmas you will see this product on the
shelves..it is already prototyped, evaluated, packaged, and being
manufactured right now for a release in a few months..
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> Evidently you have never flown over Dallas Texas at night and seen the
> huge amount of power wasted on lights in the city...
No, but I've flown over London at night. Actually there didn't seem to be vast
amounts of waste light.
> this LED kick is going to go somewhere and catch on. They will end up costing
> $1 each.
It took about 20 years for the price of a CFL to drop from ~ £15-20 to the 39p
(subsidised) - about £2.50 (unsubsidised) that I can buy one for now.
Expect something similar for LEDS.
Graham
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> The heat factor has been dealt with in these lights already. Just keep
> watching the shelves and by Xmas you will see this product on the
> shelves..it is already prototyped, evaluated, packaged, and being
> manufactured right now for a release in a few months..
Cite ?
Graham
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >Patrick Turner wrote:
> >
> >> > >The only country thats done anything about the population problem is
> >> > >China.
> >> > Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
> >> > supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
> >> > is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
> >> > provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the house
> >> > down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
> >> > suck!
> >> > It will sell for $10...MMM
> >>
> >> The problem is that the price of $10 has to be earned.
> >
> >The real problem is that there is no such product and there's not going to be
> >for a long, long time, if ever.
> >
> >"60 watts of light" for 3.5W indeed ! I assume the idiot means '60W worth of
> >incandescent light' for 3.5W.
>
>
> When you say idiot asshole..you best be looking in the fucking
> mirror..
So how many *lumens* does your 3.5W LED make ? You could at least use the correct
unit.
Here's some info on a current 4W LED lamp.
http://www.le-lighting.com/uploads/documents/Lighthouse%20MR16-V2%20Series%20(Version%201.0).pdf
It produces a mere 60 lumens of 'warm white' light suitable for domestic use (100
lumens if you go for a high colour temp version that gives a 'blue' light that's
unsuitable for your living room).
In comparison, a Philips 11W CFL (rather optimistically sold as a replacement for
a standard 60W incandescent) produces 600 lumens.
So you require TEN of these 4W LED lamps = *40 W* to even equal the light output
of an 11W CFL which IME produces less light than the 60W incandescent.
So Mr Idiot Asshole, where did you come across this valuable scientific
information ? In the colour supplements, those well know bastions of accurate
infoarmation ?
Graham
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"J.P." wrote:
> >
> >> Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
> >> supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
> >> is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
> >> provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the house
> >> down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
> >> suck!
> >> It will sell for $10...MMM
> >
> >What comic did you read about that in ?
>
>
> Saw it on Discovery channel two weeks ago...
Oh right. That explains a lot.
Believe everything you see or hear do you ?
Graham
Patrick Turner
> Evidently you have never flown over Dallas Texas at night and seen the
> huge amount of power wasted on lights in the city...this LED kick is
> going to go somewhere and catch on. They will end up costing $1 each
> down the road.The help is not in your small shack nor in mine but in
> businesses that burn 10000 lights 24/7 it will make a big difference
> or in 10 000 000 000 shacks that use them....lights are a big user of
> energy. And no I do not hug trees nor fuck hippys...
I am not a tree hugger or hippy either, not a fundementalist religious
person.
I just want to shoot the guy wanting to chop down a tree, and completely
ignore the
fundementalist after telling him he's a complete fool and BS artist.
I'd prefer we left the planet in better condition than when we came,
which
seems impossible.
Like when you buy a farm, the land must be better off when
you're done at 80 then when you came at 20.
To me this means that its more productive, but the balance of nature ius
enhanced with serious areas
left for reserves for the natural widlife. Balance is the key to
preservation of species.
But although the lights of Dallas and all other cities are are
spectacular,
its the heating and cooling of buildings that sucks far more power.
Last night it snowed a bit here and I huddled around a little one bar
750W heater near my PC.
But I know lots of other folks who use 10kW all day long.
Their cooling requires air con at 10kW nearly all day in summer and the
only time their are not
burning lots of power is spring and autumn.
At their offices its the same, although heat/cool is more efficient
mainly because its shared with other workers.
Then these ppl drive 400km a week and burn all that fuel.
Then they sit on their arses in front of a PC all day and the PC sucks
power.
They take expensive holidays and burn a years worth of heating fuel in
the plane.
Every single darn thing they do cannot be done without huge amounts of
fuel and coal.
The lighting is the most obvious use of power because you SEE the
results,
but the other uses percapita are 9 times more.
I'd prefer all lights in cities be turned off when nobody is in the
room.
But its not going to make a huge difference.
Very few people are going to wind back their levels of consumption to
mine where
I can survive on $10,000 per anum.
If everyone lived like me in western countries, all the world would see
a huge major recession the likes of which
has never ever been seen before, but there'd hardly be a greenhouse
effect.
Not much heart disease either, no alcoholics, smokers, very little
manifestation of affluenza, or greed, and
as i said, all ppl would really need are doctors and dentists to keep
them alive for 85 years.
Industry would be capable of meeting society's needs if reduced by 80%.
Most ppl would be taught how to build their own houses and how to care
for them so
little use of builders would be needed.
I have not used an electrician, plumber, or lawyer for the last 30
years,
and drive a second hand Ford Laser, and use $20 a week on fuel.
Nobody I know would be happy living in my state of frugality.
I have never lost the idea that life is about more important things than
being rich.
Being rich is a grossly corrupt way of being that will fuck the planet.
I welcome the $1 LED; then I'll be able to buy them, and surely its
possible,
for when you look at an LED, its a tiny thing, and should have a tiny
price,
but you just watch the merchants of greed pumping as much $$ from
everyone....
I recal when SS amplifiers began to be produced, stereo hi-fi sets
cost just slightly more than tube sets with one channel, and boy were we
all ripped off.
It took years before the prices came down to what they should have been.
Meanwhile the bosses at Mullard drove about in Rolls Royces.
Patrick Turner.
Alan Rutlidge
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:46812EB9...@turneraudio.com.au...
The problem is you have lived too close to Canberra for too long Patrick. :P
How long has it taken the Howard government to admit that climate change and
the effects of global warming are real?
Even if every Western country cut their carbon emissions by 50% overnight,
the Chinese economy would continue to grow at an incredible rate and they
would continue to contribute to greenhouse gasses at the same increasing
rate.
All very well if you are an old fart and don't give a shit about the crap
condition you leave the planet in, you may not live long enough to regret
having your head in the sand.
The sad truth is we have been aware of what destructive things we are doing
to this planet for decades and done squat all about it. Mega corporations
are profit driven and don't give a shit as long as they continue to make
billions of dollars in profit. Most third world governments don't give a
shit and half the Western governments are just in plain denial. :-(
I don't have any kids but it still concerns me greatly about what the world
may be like in 40 years time. Heaven's the thought I might still be alive!
It would appear that the majority of the world's populous live for the here
and now and until it hits them in the face they are about to die or have a
serious change to their living conditions / lifestyle, most don't give a
rat's behind. They will continue to waste energy, burn fossil fuels and
generally pollute the planet with their rubbish.
If we don't develop or change over to more energy efficient technologies, we
should at least reduce the usage of the existing infrastructure of low
efficiency technologies. If these means not leaving our precious power amps
on standby so be it. I agree Patrick that you alone will make no
difference, but if everyone either switched off unused appliances or changed
over to more energy efficient technologies it would make a significant
difference in the long term. We could make a start at looking at the way we
build housing here in Australia with a view to improving the energy
efficiency rating. Canberra, a city with extremes of seasonal changes might
be a good place to start in improving the thermal efficiency of dwellings
alone.
Cheers,
Alan
Eeyore
Alan Rutlidge wrote:
> The problem is you have lived too close to Canberra for too long Patrick. :P
> How long has it taken the Howard government to admit that climate change and
> the effects of global warming are real?
What warming ?
Here's 187 years of *actual* real world atmospheric temperature measurements,
not some tree ring data.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/aly/climatef/annualwx.htm
Where's the warming ?
Graham
Dersu Uzala
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
cooler, but on the whole, the planet will be warmer. Picking on spot to
represent the whole earth is stupid, you know that, Graham. I'm disappointed
in you. I've gained weight over the years, look at my waist,no wait- my ring
size is the same, so I must be the same weight as when I was in college...
You gave us the wrong web page from NOAA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/ghcnland.html
Eeyore
Dersu Uzala wrote:
> rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
> >Alan Rutlidge wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is you have lived too close to Canberra for too long Patrick.
> :P
> >> How long has it taken the Howard government to admit that climate change
> >> and the effects of global warming are real?
> >
> >What warming ?
> >
> >Here's 187 years of *actual* real world atmospheric temperature measurements,
> >not some tree ring data.
> >http://www.erh.noaa.gov/aly/climatef/annualwx.htm
> >
> >Where's the warming ?
>
> The theory of global warming predicts that some locales will be warmer, some
> cooler, but on the whole, the planet will be warmer. Picking on spot to
> represent the whole earth is stupid, you know that, Graham.
It happens to be the spot with the longet record.
> I'm disappointed
> in you. I've gained weight over the years, look at my waist,no wait- my ring
> size is the same, so I must be the same weight as when I was in college...
> You gave us the wrong web page from NOAA.
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1997/ghcnland.html
" It shows that 1997 is one of the four warmest years on record."
You mean warmest since 1880.
That's surface temp not atmospheric temp btw.
Hardly surprising since back then we were still coming out of the 'Little Ice
Age'. Do we want to go back to another little ice age ?
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/akad0.htm
The Thames used to freeze over in winter back then. A historical fact the IPCC
can't deny.
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/bilder/562px-Frost_Fair_of_1683.jpg
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/bilder/Frostfairs_1814.jpg
Graham
Patrick Turner
I have never ever voted for the Liberal Party of Australia.
Canberra is a great place to live, and John Bloward as you know doesn't
live in the
Lodge here, but at Keribilly Houze in Sydney.
John's getting old, and older people have lots of trouble
keeping up with what young ppl think, and old John has only become
concerned enough to appear to be doing something
about it all because there are votes at stake and this year there is a
Federal Election.
But all the action Oz might take is quite pointless while China opens
two coal fired power stations each week...
> Even if every Western country cut their carbon emissions by 50% overnight,
> the Chinese economy would continue to grow at an incredible rate and they
> would continue to contribute to greenhouse gasses at the same increasing
> rate.
Exactly.
> All very well if you are an old fart and don't give a shit about the crap
> condition you leave the planet in, you may not live long enough to regret
> having your head in the sand.
> The sad truth is we have been aware of what destructive things we are doing
> to this planet for decades and done squat all about it. Mega corporations
> are profit driven and don't give a shit as long as they continue to make
> billions of dollars in profit. Most third world governments don't give a
> shit and half the Western governments are just in plain denial. :-(
Maybe they all become more concerned when we have some serious weather
extremes....
But right now its business as usual, no real progress, and any problems
will be paid for by the public.
>
> I don't have any kids but it still concerns me greatly about what the world
> may be like in 40 years time. Heaven's the thought I might still be alive!
I'll be 100 in 40 years.
I doubt I will be around.
I will have lived a frugal life and consumed far less than most others,
and
if everyone lived like I do there'd be no problem.
> It would appear that the majority of the world's populous live for the here
> and now and until it hits them in the face they are about to die or have a
> serious change to their living conditions / lifestyle, most don't give a
> rat's behind. They will continue to waste energy, burn fossil fuels and
> generally pollute the planet with their rubbish.
Humans have aways been like this. All the cities and civilisations of
the past rose up
and then declined, often because it all became top heavy and fell over.
So despite our technology, it can happen in future.
>
> If we don't develop or change over to more energy efficient technologies, we
> should at least reduce the usage of the existing infrastructure of low
> efficiency technologies. If these means not leaving our precious power amps
> on standby so be it. I agree Patrick that you alone will make no
> difference, but if everyone either switched off unused appliances or changed
> over to more energy efficient technologies it would make a significant
> difference in the long term. We could make a start at looking at the way we
> build housing here in Australia with a view to improving the energy
> efficiency rating. Canberra, a city with extremes of seasonal changes might
> be a good place to start in improving the thermal efficiency of dwellings
> alone.
My wages are so low I have never been able to afford the $20,000+ for a
total green makeover on the house
with water tanks, water re-cycling, and far better insulation and more
double glazing.
But I huddle over a 1 bar radiator as i type. I changed its wiring to
allow just one 750W bar to work.
and the PC and the heater is in my bedroom, so it doesn't get too cold.
I don't have any central heating or cooling, and have used only 2 tonnes
of firewood over the last 12 years.
Most ppl would hate living here, especially ppl from Queensland, but
they are mostly like
lizards, and depend on laying around in the sun to warm, and become
irritable and unhappy in the cold,
but I am always busy, and I don't mind the cold.
I often ride a bicycle around the town even when its only 8C.
People think I am mad, but no, just quite robust and fit, doing
something energetic
and natural. In the summer I'm out there when its 35C, and I just drink
more water.
I don't need a FWD vehicle to go bush, I just ride off on an old
bicycle.
Not last week though. Its rained and snowed, and I discovered the old
bike had metal fatigue cracks
in the wheels and head stock, and have had to spend a few $$ and some
time off the bike to
do some wheel building and serious maintenance.
I can only manage to get about 20,000km from a bicycle before having to
replace wheels and things.
After scrounging around the shops I got some real bargains.
It does the body good to rest for a week in really bad weather to do
repairs
on my favourite transport system.
While some parts are on order for one bike, No2 bike is ready, and has
only 1 gear,
and since Canberra isn't too hilly unless you get out into the mountains
( now covered in snow ) nearby
then the one gear is all I really need.
One guy I knew fron Victoria, Rod Evans, rode all the way from Perth to
Sydney to try to set a record
about 20 years ago, and he had only one gear. Oz is mainly flat. And Rod
was mighty strong.
I met him when he was with a bunch of 15 on a charity ride from Sydney
to Canberra in 1988,
and while everyone else used 14 speed gears, he rode with just the one.
I did 300Kms between 1am and 4pm, much slower than the 25 year olds,
but a very enjoyable little ride.
Patrick Turner.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
Ian Mitchell
Snip
>
> "On record" is a cute slight of hand, isn't it? As if out of 4 billion
> years the comical 130 'on record' means spit. And that's without
> even getting into the extent, coverage, accuracy, consistency, and
> reliability of measurements in 1880, 1900, or whenever.
Out of the 4 billion years, its only the last 130 that matter re the global
warming debate. Prior to that we didn't have an industrial age creating the
greenhouse gases that are causing the problem.
Ian Mitchell
> Nonsense. The physics of CO2, the 'greenhouse effect', and how the
> earth's climate responds, or fails to respond, to any of it is the
> same now as it was at any other point in time. And that includes
> effects from that thing apparently considered trivial theses days, the
> sun, as well as cosmic rays and a whole host of things either known or
> unknown.
>
>> Prior to that we didn't have an industrial age creating the
>>greenhouse gases that are causing the problem.
>>
>
> be (and looking at 130 years can not possibly tell you), you can't
> make any valid determination about whether it's being 'altered', much
> less by how much.
>
> You're operating on the coincidence logic fallacy that if you see A
> and B then A must cause B, or is it that B that causes A, or is it C
> that causes both A and B. Or is it something else?
Fact: CO2 and the other greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere are
responsible for a greenhouse effect, contributing to global warming. The
only debate is by how much.
Fact: Since the begining of the industrial age we have been pumping millions
of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere, while simultaneously deforesting
the planet, thereby hamstinging the planet's ability to deal with it.
Coincidence logic fallacy? I prefer to cite Ozcam's razor on this one.
Ian Iveson
> supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US that
> is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
> provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the
> house
> down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my experience
> suck!
So if we can convert this light to electrical power with greater than
6% efficiency, all our problems are solved.
Yippee.
Ian
Eeyore
Ian Mitchell wrote:
> Snip
> >
> > "On record" is a cute slight of hand, isn't it? As if out of 4 billion
> > years the comical 130 'on record' means spit. And that's without
> > even getting into the extent, coverage, accuracy, consistency, and
> > reliability of measurements in 1880, 1900, or whenever.
>
> Out of the 4 billion years, its only the last 130 that matter re the global
> warming debate.
Rubbish.
> Prior to that we didn't have an industrial age creating the
> greenhouse gases that are causing the problem.
But we've had higher CO2 levels than exist now.
Graham
Eeyore
Ian Mitchell wrote:
> Fact: CO2 and the other greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere are
> responsible for a greenhouse effect, contributing to global warming. The
> only debate is by how much.
As in between none at all and maybe a bit.
> Fact: Since the begining of the industrial age we have been pumping millions
> of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere, while simultaneously deforesting
> the planet, thereby hamstinging the planet's ability to deal with it.
Human CO2 is totally dwarfed by natural sources.
Graham
Ian Mitchell
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46831D5B...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Ian Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Snip
>> >
>> > "On record" is a cute slight of hand, isn't it? As if out of 4 billion
>> > years the comical 130 'on record' means spit. And that's without
>> > even getting into the extent, coverage, accuracy, consistency, and
>> > reliability of measurements in 1880, 1900, or whenever.
>>
>> Out of the 4 billion years, its only the last 130 that matter re the
>> global
>> warming debate.
>
> Rubbish.
If you say so
>
>> Prior to that we didn't have an industrial age creating the
>> greenhouse gases that are causing the problem.
>
> But we've had higher CO2 levels than exist now.
>
> Graham
>
>
Yes we have, but ice-core samples reflecting a "blip" caused by an event
like Santorini or Krakatoa are really not representative of the situation we
are faced with at the moment.
Ian Mitchell
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:6c7683ljaqbhn2flu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:35:29 GMT, "Ian Mitchell"
> <Ian.Mi...@citec.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Nonsense. The physics of CO2, the 'greenhouse effect', and how the
>>> earth's climate responds, or fails to respond, to any of it is the
>>> same now as it was at any other point in time. And that includes
>>> effects from that thing apparently considered trivial theses days, the
>>> sun, as well as cosmic rays and a whole host of things either known or
>>> unknown.
>>>
>>>> Prior to that we didn't have an industrial age creating the
>>>>greenhouse gases that are causing the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point is if you don't know what the natural climate is, or should
>>> be (and looking at 130 years can not possibly tell you), you can't
>>> make any valid determination about whether it's being 'altered', much
>>> less by how much.
>>>
>>> You're operating on the coincidence logic fallacy that if you see A
>>> and B then A must cause B, or is it that B that causes A, or is it C
>>> that causes both A and B. Or is it something else?
>>
>>Fact: CO2 and the other greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere are
>>responsible for a greenhouse effect, contributing to global warming. The
>>only debate is by how much.
>
> water vapor, which accounts for over 90% of the greenhouse effect.
>
> Then there's the matter that 99% of the carbon cycle is natural with a
> poor understanding of exactly how much each source and sink
> contributes as well as a poor understanding of how they 'react' to
> changes, like do they alter the amount they source and sink if the
> atmospheric levels change like, as but one simple example, there being
> more or less living/dead bio matter.
>
> According to the geological record we actually have extraordinarily
> LOW atmospheric CO2 levels.
>
>>Fact: Since the begining of the industrial age we have been pumping
>>millions
>>of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere,
>
> what?
>
>> while simultaneously deforesting
>>the planet,
>
> America now than when the Pilgrims landed.
>
>> thereby hamstinging the planet's ability to deal with it.
>
>
>
>>Coincidence logic fallacy? I prefer to cite Ozcam's razor on this one.
>>
>
So which petrol company do you work for again? :-)
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one, I for one, hope you're
right
But I suspect, (and the general scientific consensus is with me on this)
you're not.
Of course it could all be a conspiracy theory
Eeyore
Ian Mitchell wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Ian Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> Snip
> >> >
> >> > "On record" is a cute slight of hand, isn't it? As if out of 4 billion
> >> > years the comical 130 'on record' means spit. And that's without
> >> > even getting into the extent, coverage, accuracy, consistency, and
> >> > reliability of measurements in 1880, 1900, or whenever.
> >>
> >> Out of the 4 billion years, its only the last 130 that matter re the
> >> global warming debate.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> If you say so
I do.
> >> Prior to that we didn't have an industrial age creating the
> >> greenhouse gases that are causing the problem.
> >
> > But we've had higher CO2 levels than exist now.
>
>
> Yes we have, but ice-core samples reflecting a "blip" caused by an event
> like Santorini or Krakatoa are really not representative of the situation we
> are faced with at the moment.
No, not blips but levels of CO2 consistently above 300pm throughout the
nineteenth century (real atmospheric measurements, not the IPCC's daft and
fundamentally flawed extrapolations from ice cores).
See Historic Papers CO2: 19th century
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
Graham
Eeyore
flipper wrote:
> Well, *that's* an interesting site.
There's lots, lots more.
It seems that the IPCC's temperature and CO2 data is flawed. Ummmm.. so how can
they show global warming is due to CO2 if the data on both the warming and the CO2
are wrong ?
Graham
Alan Rutlidge
Facts, "facts" and facts? can be massaged and manipulated to suit the
writer's agenda.
I don't give a rat's behind if global warming is a conspiracy. But what if
it isn't?
When we have totally fucked the planet, any of you smart arses got any idea
where the world's population might migrate to? But then I suspect most of
you don't care - with a bit of luck you'll be dead and buried. However it
may come to pass that children generations down the track will read the
debates of the early 21st century and recount how we stuffed it up so badly.
Yes, it may very well be true the CO2 level in the Earth's atmosphere has
varied greatly in the pass 3 billion years but as has been pointed out
earlier, in the last 130 years or so we have added a lot of other poisons to
the air, land and water that mother nature has little or nothing to do with.
It is fascinating that man is the only creature that is quite prepared to
shit in its own nest then squawk about it later and generally after it's too
late. :-(
So maybe I'm a bit concerned about what we are doing to our planet. I'd
rather err on the side of trying to correct the problem now, rather than
waiting until it is too late to reverse or contain the effects.
Cheers,
Alan
roughplanet
Alan Rutlidge wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
>> >> > > >The only country thats done anything about the population problem
>> >> > > >is
>> >> > > >China.
>> >> > > Aside of the OT slide of this topic, in the next 90 days, there is
>> >> > > supposed to be a new light bulb replacement available in the US
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > is comprised of LEDs, has a 50000 hour life and uses 3.5 watts to
>> >> > > provide 60 watts of white light with less chances of burning the
>> >> > > house down and releasing mercury as these CF bulbs..which in my
>> >> > > experience suck!
>> >> > > It will sell for $10...MMM
>> >> > The problem is that the price of $10 has to be earned.
>> >> The real problem is that there is no such product and there's not
>> >> going
>> >> to be for a long, long time, if ever.
>> >>
>> >> "60 watts of light" for 3.5W indeed ! I assume the idiot means '60W
>> >> worth
>> >> of incandescent light' for 3.5W.
>> > Well, some guys here have used LED based lights mounted on their safety
>> > helmets for mountian bike races that go for 24 hours.
>> > The light the LED put out is remarkably bright and the batteries last
>> > remarkably long for the riders compared to using ILs.
>> >
>> > The lights they use do need heatsinks....another solid state hot
>> > solution....
>> >
>> > I determined what the benefits might be for me if 60 watt brightness
>> > LED
>> > lamps were available for $10, and used only 3.5 watts of electrical
>> > power each, >> > and calculated its 0.18 cents per day.
>> >
>> > This saving by everyone won't save the world.
>> >
>> > If lighting was free, ie, cost nothing to run or buy, the greenhose
>> > effect would continue without much change IMHO.
>> >
>> > If I swap all my vacuum tube gear for digital SS amps, ditto, the world
>> > will not be saved.
>> The problem is you have lived too close to Canberra for too long Patrick.
> Exactly.
Many of us 'live like you do' Patrick. For example, we were able to reduce
our water consumption by 62% in just 3 months by not flushing our toilet. We
have a shower over our bath, and we leave the plug in & use the 'grey water'
to flush the toilet.
Additionally, we have buckets near every tap, and if we require hot water,
fill the buckets until the hot water arrives (we are the only house in our
neighbourhood with a
solar hot water system) and use it to cook with or to water our garden.
We have tanks under 4 downpipes to collect rainwater, and recently received
an award from our local council for consistently having only one brown paper
bag of rubbish per week, almost nothing in our recycling bin, and a full
load of garden refuse (we grow virtually all our own vegetables &, have
chooks to provide us with 3 eggs per day, which we use as barter for other
things we need) every fortnight.
As our property adjoins a creek reserve, I have been able to get the guys in
the council to cut up any trees that come down when the wind gets up, and
burn this in a slow combustion stove for our heating. My amateur radio shack
is solar powered so that I don't waste electricity, and we always turn off
lights if we are not using them, as well as ensuring that none of our
electrical appliances are left in 'standby' mode.
I got rid of my limo last year & bought a small car that only uses 5.6
litres of ULP/100 kms. But we use it sparingly as we both have bicycles &
use them almost every day as they keep us fit.
And I forgot to mention that we are vegetarians too, and so don't support
the beef cattle industry, which is one of the major polluters of our planet.
If everyone was as concerned as we are, then it WOULD make one hell of a
difference, but the fact is, as you said Patrick, they aren't.
It will take a major change in the world's climate &/or the availability of
necessities like water before anything will happen, and of course, by then
it will be far too late.
ruff
roughplanet
Ian Mitchell wrote:
>>>>> > Rubbish.
>>>>> If you say so
>>>>I do.
>>> Well, *that's* an interesting site.
>>Facts, "facts" and facts? can be massaged and manipulated to suit the
>>writer's agenda.
> And just who are you claiming 'massaged' their facts? The IPCC?
> And on what basis do you decide who did and who didn't?
>>I don't give a rat's behind if global warming is a conspiracy. But what
>>if
>>it isn't?
> Everything you say clearly demonstrates you do, indeed, give a 'rats
> behind'
> so why do you feign otherwise?
>>When we have totally fucked the planet, any of you smart arses got any
>>idea
>>where the world's population might migrate to? But then I suspect most of
>>you don't care - with a bit of luck you'll be dead and buried. However it
>>may come to pass that children generations down the track will read the
>>debates of the early 21st century and recount how we stuffed it up so
>>badly.
> And when what you obviously 'believe' to be true turns out to not be
> but you've caused the death and suffering of untold millions from your
> 'fix' to a non existent problem what will you say about it?
>
> See? Just 'assuming' your right and then hurling insults isn't evidence,
> or data, or 'proof' you're right.
>>Yes, it may very well be true the CO2 level in the Earth's atmosphere has
>>varied greatly in the pass 3 billion years but as has been pointed out
>>earlier, in the last 130 years or so we have added a lot of other poisons
>>to
>>the air, land and water that mother nature has little or nothing to do
>>with.
> 'Other poisons' is 'an-other' problem. It is not, however, evidence of
> this one.
>>It is fascinating that man is the only creature that is quite prepared to
>>shit
>>in its own nest then squawk about it later and generally after it's too
>>late. :-(
> Utter nonsense. The only thing a cat does is wander a few feet over
> and crap in your space, not unlike dumping downstream, but the cat
> doesn't think twice about it's 'impact' on the environment.
Hmmmm.....you obviously don't have a cat. I do. He's 16 years old, neutered
(of course), deaf & blind. But he STILL takes himself outside into the
garden, finds a patch of dirt, digs a hole, poops or pisses in it & then
covers it up again before coming inside.
These creatures are programmed to look after their environment. All we do is
bugger it up, whether it's by polluting the air, the waterways & the oceans,
or by cutting down old growth forests at such a rate that countries like
Malaysia & the Phillipines are now net importers of timber, something they
had millions of hectares of just 40 years ago.
Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches, quite a
few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewerage
into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
>>waiting until it is too late to reverse or contain the effects.
> The problem with your 'err on the side of trying' is you neglect to
> consider the cost of your trying.
> In the last 120 years mankind has gone through 2 "the planet is warming"
> scares and two "a new ice age is coming" scares and we're now
> in the third "the planet is warming" scare because, guess what,
> climate changes. And if history is any measure then we're due for the
> third 'coming ice age' scare in about 20 years.
ruff
Patrick Turner
>
> Many of us 'live like you do' Patrick. For example, we were able to reduce
> our water consumption by 62% in just 3 months by not flushing our toilet. We
> have a shower over our bath, and we leave the plug in & use the 'grey water'
> to flush the toilet.
>
> Additionally, we have buckets near every tap, and if we require hot water,
> fill the buckets until the hot water arrives (we are the only house in our
> neighbourhood with a
> solar hot water system) and use it to cook with or to water our garden.
>
> We have tanks under 4 downpipes to collect rainwater, and recently received
> an award from our local council for consistently having only one brown paper
> bag of rubbish per week, almost nothing in our recycling bin, and a full
> load of garden refuse (we grow virtually all our own vegetables &, have
> chooks to provide us with 3 eggs per day, which we use as barter for other
> things we need) every fortnight.
But what you are doing is completely offset by most ppl who
don't/won't/can't do
what your'e doing to be green.
I applaud your efforts, but the majority of ppl don't have time of money
to be green minded; they are fixed in empire building mode, where the
world and its resources must be plundered
to advance their wealth.
>
> As our property adjoins a creek reserve, I have been able to get the guys in
> the council to cut up any trees that come down when the wind gets up, and
> burn this in a slow combustion stove for our heating. My amateur radio shack
> is solar powered so that I don't waste electricity, and we always turn off
> lights if we are not using them, as well as ensuring that none of our
> electrical appliances are left in 'standby' mode.
>
> I got rid of my limo last year & bought a small car that only uses 5.6
> litres of ULP/100 kms. But we use it sparingly as we both have bicycles &
> use them almost every day as they keep us fit.
> And I forgot to mention that we are vegetarians too, and so don't support
> the beef cattle industry, which is one of the major polluters of our planet.
>
> If everyone was as concerned as we are, then it WOULD make one hell of a
> difference, but the fact is, as you said Patrick, they aren't.
Its the point I am making. Most people want it all, and wnat it now, and
to hell with the planet.
Especially when they are young, and start a family.
Even the act of breeding is a grand assualt on the planet's resources.
You meet a girl have 3 kids, and in 60 years there are 20 more mouths to
feed, clothe and house
because of 3 critically timed fucks.
Peter Costello out Treasurer said have one for dad, one for mum, and one
for the country.
What a fuckwit old man he is! ....but of course he tells young folks to
breed like rabbits.
He thinks he must tell them, or they won't breed, and could become
thinkers instead of parents,
and that'd be real dangerous, as the bosses and their companies couldn't
grow to make even more obscene profits,
and then we'd run out of tax payers and workers in 30 years time and
nobody would be young enough to
operate essential services such as old folks homes and power stations,
and society would crumble.
Its fear and bullshit he's selling.
> It will take a major change in the world's climate &/or the availability of
> necessities like water before anything will happen, and of course, by then
> it will be far too late.
Hmm water doesn't seem to be such a problem. Now we have massive floods
in Oz.
What goes up, must come down, and if its hotter, more water will
evaporate to the atmosphere,
and it must return downwards. Can't and won't stay up there. Sometimes
it comes down
in Katrina sized buckets. Maybe it'll do that a lot more often.
Other places will have bigger droughts for longer, so no place will be
immune to change,
some good, some bad, or mostly bad if we are lulled by the doom and
gloom and fear
of change, and fear of the unknown, ie, the future.
Had the drought we have just had gone on for another 2 years, Canberra
would have run out of water.
OK, we would have been forced to build a desalination pant at Batemen's
Bay and pump
the water for drinking and bathing 80kms up over the range from the
coast.
100,000 households here each paying $500 per year extra for their water
would raise 50 million bucks,
and methinks it'd be enough to cover costs of the water.
I already pay about $3,000 in bills for water, sewer, electricity, and
general rates.
Another $10 a week is little. Even $50 a week isn't much when the
average wage is now 44 grand a year.
Purchases of Plasma TV sets or a new car would just have to be postponed
a bit to get water we don't have when we get
a one in a 100 year occurrence of a 5 year long drought.
Humanity, and hu-womanity are acting just like a huge volcano might if
we were to combine all their
gaseous discharge efforts together.
Volcanic erruptions have long been known to affect climate, and we are
doing it alright.
We don't see what other ppl do and other people don't see what we do,
and any problems are somebody
else's. Of course!, and most undeveloped nation-fulls of ppl are hell
bent
on getting right into the good life before it all goes bad.
ppl are saying, well, I'll be a greenie when I get the woman, house and
kids all established.
Being really green is something than silly old fuddy duddy boring oldies
do.
They won't even flush their loos. Peeoo!!, what a stink, how boring!!
And those green old farts often live in huge big houses and won't give
anything away
while young folks have to struggle 30 years working and being most
un-green to
pay for life as they want it, or someone in the media says they should,
house, cars, wife, kids, affluenza, consumania.
Patrick Turner.
>
> ruff
bassett
"Alan Rutlidge" <don't_spam_me...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:46834ffe$0$12834$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
It might just be the natural progression of the planet.
What caused the Ice caps to form 10.000 years ago, and 10.000 years
later, there melting, and 10.000 years on, they form again. Who knows.
But one thing I do know, Me driving down the road with a smoky
exhaust will make bugger all difference.
bassett
bassett
"roughplanet" <rough...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message >
> (of course), deaf & blind. But he STILL takes himself outside into the
> garden, finds a patch of dirt, digs a hole, poops or pisses in it & then
> covers it up again before coming inside.
I hate cats, any cats come near my little weed patch, and they
don't leave,
Electro therapy, a bullet, or a nice dish of warm milk with a couple of
Asprins,
or they get the nice treatment, I give them a little cuddle, then
bang there heads on a wall
I,ve done in quite a few off-um
> These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
And total distroy and kill everything in it. Cats kill for the sake
of killing.
Cat's are the number one contender when it comes to environmental
distruction.
But apart from your liking for "pussy" I agree with everything
else you have said..
lov bassett
>All we do is bugger it up, whether it's by polluting the air, the waterways
>& the oceans, or by cutting down old growth forests at such a rate that
>countries like Malaysia & the Phillipines are now net importers of timber,
>something they had millions of hectares of just 40 years ago.
>
> Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
>
>> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
>
> Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches, quite
> a few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
> rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewerage
> into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
> Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
> doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
>
>
> ruff
>
Eeyore
bassett wrote:
> I hate cats
For any particular reason ?
Graham
bassett
"roughplanet" <rough...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message .
Nice Ruff, Nice, But you forgot to say that you never ride your
bikes into the wind, there by avoiding wind turbulence, which would
inadvertently blow the littler leaves of all the bloody tree's
So hows the Gout this year, do the pills still do a good job, I
expect you take them with a nice glass of fresh water, from your
environmently friendly Polyurethane water tank, But only the one with
the experimental screen in the top, which reduces all the water born
nasties, by 98% from entering the water.
I was also very please to hear that you had donated your Limo to
Vinnie's , and bought yourself a Toyota Prius very wise move .
You really are a good example to young people with your constant
examples of environment awareness.
I expect your TAFE course on Tree hugging, is well advanced. But
please excuse my dumb questions , I was under the impression you where
instructing in the course, not merely a student.
lov bassett
Phil Allison
"Eeysore Asinine ASD Fucked Fucking IDIOT "
aka Graham Stevenson, brain dead pommy cunt ( like there is another kind
?? )
> bassett wrote:
>
>> I hate cats
>
> For any particular reason ?
** ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!
Woof woof .......
What a fucking cretin !!!!!!
....... Phil
bassett
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:5ehpulF...@mid.individual.net...
bassett
bassett
Yes I have spent many years bird scaping my little patch [I have a
few acres]
I have an abundance of small native animals and birds, something
which would not be there IF cats where also present. So when I see
one, or find any evidence of a resent kill, Out come the traps, and
I go looking with a gun,
The PPB, supply me with baits for Fox's and wild dogs.
It's funny really, I hate cats, but really enjoy eating "Pussy"
bassett
Alan Rutlidge
"bassett" <bas...@bassettskennel.com.au> wrote in message
news:4683...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
If it was only you with the one and only smoky exhaust I seriously doubt if
there'd be a problem worth worrying about. It's the other billion or so
exhausts (smoky or otherwise) that may very well cumulatively be the
problem.
In isolation, it's easy to dismiss our individual actions. After all, on
the Earth, individually we account for bugger all when you consider the
entire world's population. Heck, even in Australia each of us will soon
only be one in 21,000,000. After all, what's a dollar when you have
millions to spend? I'd be pretty wealthy if every person on the planet gave
me just 1 cent. So Baz, consider your old banger as just one of many
chuffing out bags of CO and CO2 along with a swag of other noxious
chemicals. It all adds up.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Rutlidge
Now, now Baz..... get back in that non-insulated kennel and fire up the sat
decoder. :P
Cheers,
Alan
J.P.
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"J.P." wrote:
>
>> The heat factor has been dealt with in these lights already. Just keep
>> watching the shelves and by Xmas you will see this product on the
>> shelves..it is already prototyped, evaluated, packaged, and being
>> manufactured right now for a release in a few months..
>
>Cite ?
>
>Graham
>
I cannot cite shit right now but we will see what turns up by Xmas. As
far as global warming goes...these cocksuckers are not going to
convince me that a few old ladys spraying deoderant under their arms
is screwing the universe. As an ex union pipefitter that worked on the
Houston ship channel refineries as well as other south of Houston,
including the cyanide unit at Monsano (BP now), I have seen and
experienced many releases of gases. They are pumping out a billion
pounds of loaded air per day. And even with .01% of some chemical, it
still adds up to damaging people around it. And dumping dangerous shit
into the atmosphere after 5pm and all weekend after the EPA office
closes. Those corporate bastards are the big perps as well as the suto
that could be made way more efficient and use less fuel. But I suppose
the auto companies are really owned by big oil in some way. Why else
would they keep on making gas guzzlers?
Just bury your own shit so no one else steps in it.
Now that they are on top with the profits it is time to get on top
with the scrubbers and clean air stuff too.
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >"J.P." wrote:
> >
> >> The heat factor has been dealt with in these lights already. Just keep
> >> watching the shelves and by Xmas you will see this product on the
> >> shelves..it is already prototyped, evaluated, packaged, and being
> >> manufactured right now for a release in a few months..
> >
> >Cite ?
>
> I cannot cite shit right now but we will see what turns up by Xmas.
I found it.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/new_led_lamp_ph.php
Also....
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Pharox-240V-LED-Lightbulbs.htm
It makes 60 lumens per watt. That's about the same as a CFL.
60 lumems/watt x 3.4W = 204 lumens (this 3.4 W LED lamp)
Standard 60W incandescent = 850 lumens
Standard 40W incandescent = 500 lumens
In short it comes nowhere near replacing either a 40W or 60W stardard
incandescent bulb. It's roughly equivalent to a standard 25W bulb in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb
As usual the greenies are telling lies to make 'their thing' look vastly better
than it is.
Suggest you read....
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/03/light-bulbs-and-eco-fascism.html
Graham
J.P.
Well, if that is the same light then I misheard 60 watts for 60
lumens..but so what..the first one that hasn't ever screwed up before
can call himself the antichrist...fortunately I am human...and I hope
they eventually make all the doubting Thomases eat shit....
Phil Allison
"Eeysore Raving Lunatic" "
>
> Suggest you read....
> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/03/light-bulbs-and-eco-fascism.html
** Nice pic of the internals of a CFL there.
Wonder who took that ??
....... Phil ;-)
Eeyore
"J.P." wrote:
> Well, if that is the same light
I'm sure it is
> then I misheard 60 watts for 60 lumens..but so what..
So what ??? !!!!
There's about a ten times difference ! As if a fuckwit like you would understand or
care. Check your facts before posting drivel again.
As it is, that lamp will be a poor substitute for a 25W incandescent.
Graham
Patrick Turner
Rod Eliot?
or yourself?
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
The site at
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/new_led_lamp_ph.php
has a lamp which requires 3.5W of electric power to produce **60 lumens
per watt** of light,
so 3.5W gives 210lumens.
a "14W" LED lamp would make 840 lumens, and thus be much more efficient
that any IL.
If you can read dutch, see the site at
Patrick Turner.
Eeyore
Patrick Turner wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "J.P." wrote:
> >
> > > Well, if that is the same light
> >
> > I'm sure it is
> >
> > > then I misheard 60 watts for 60 lumens..but so what..
> >
> > So what ??? !!!!
> >
> > There's about a ten times difference ! As if a fuckwit like you would understand or
> > care. Check your facts before posting drivel again.
> >
> > As it is, that lamp will be a poor substitute for a 25W incandescent.
>
> The site at
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/new_led_lamp_ph.php
>
> has a lamp which requires 3.5W of electric power to produce **60 lumens
> per watt** of light, so 3.5W gives 210lumens.
>
> a "14W" LED lamp would make 840 lumens, and thus be much more efficient
> that any IL.
So far it seems, LED lamps top out at 3-4 W.
> If you can read dutch, see the site at
>
> http://www.lemnislighting.nl/
I found it the other day but no it wasn't much help on account of the language.
Another problem with white LEDs is that the more efficient ones tend to have a very high
colour temperature, typically 6000 - 7000 K which looks very blue. Not really very
satisfactory for domestic use. There are 'warm white' ones too but the luminous
efficiency for these drops off drastically.
Graham
Fun Tyme
Development of high-power LEDs is steadily progressing, for the latest
(quite recent at that)news from one mob.....LEDs suddenly got more
efficient.
Eeyore
Fun Tyme wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> "J.P." wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well, if that is the same light
> >> I'm sure it is
> >>
> >>> then I misheard 60 watts for 60 lumens..but so what..
> >> So what ??? !!!!
> >>
> >> There's about a ten times difference ! As if a fuckwit like you would understand or
> >> care. Check your facts before posting drivel again.
> >>
> >> As it is, that lamp will be a poor substitute for a 25W incandescent.
> >
> > The site at
> >
> > http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/new_led_lamp_ph.php
> >
> > has a lamp which requires 3.5W of electric power to produce **60 lumens
> > per watt** of light, so 3.5W gives 210lumens.
> >
> > a "14W" LED lamp would make 840 lumens, and thus be much more efficient
> > that any IL.
> >
> > If you can read dutch, see the site at
> >
> > http://www.lemnislighting.nl/
>
>
> Development of high-power LEDs is steadily progressing, for the latest
> (quite recent at that)news from one mob.....LEDs suddenly got more
> efficient.
>
> http://www.cree.com/products/ledlamps.asp
The ultra efficient white leds have a very unpleasant 7000k colour temperature. You need
to look into the details.
Graham
Fun Tyme
I only quoted development of increases in efficiency, you need to look
into the details of my words.
The fact is development continues, and it is likely that increased
efficiency is occurring with respect to your favoured colour temperature
lamps.
Eeyore
Fun Tyme wrote:
> Crikey you read that site in its entirety very quickly !
I already knew from reading about Osram and Luxeon leds.
> I only quoted development of increases in efficiency, you need to look
> into the details of my words.
>
> The fact is development continues, and it is likely that increased
> efficiency is occurring with respect to your favoured colour temperature
> lamps.
I'm sure development is continuing but in view of how that LED lamp that started this
sub-thread was misreported, I'll hold my breath before believing any fantastic stories about
LED efficiency.
Graham
Fun Tyme
interesting. CREEs already piss on LUXEONs, for portable torches etc.,
these new devices are stunning.
roughplanet
Ian Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>> > Rubbish.
>>>>>>> If you say so
>>>>>>I do.
> Your deductions of what's 'obvious' is flawed and the behavior of your
> cat doesn't mean every cat on the planet does the same.
OK, I'll say it again. You obviously don't have a cat or have ever studied
their behaviour.
They all behave as I have suggested, or at least the vast majority do (the
ones that no God-playing breeders have stuffed around with excluded).
> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it. Which is
it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to decimals 30
years ago. Too hard for you were they?
>>These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
> I don't know about you but, like your cat, I don't shit in my bed either.
After some of the crap you've posted here, I'm not so sure about that.
>> All we do is bugger it up, whether it's by polluting the air, the
>> waterways & the
>> oceans, or by cutting down old growth forests at such a rate that
>> countries like
>>Malaysia & the Phillipines are now net importers of timber, something they
>>had millions of hectares of just 40 years ago.
> And your cat is polluting whatever the heck it feels like, as long as
> it ain't where he likes to play.
No he's not. His toilet habits are restricted to a small patch of ground
which I am able to turn over fairly regularly, preventing any polluting
whatsoever. Don't like cat's at all do you?
>>Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
> What's clear is you simple hate people..
I think you meant 'simply' or was that a weird form of insult to go with
your other weird beliefs, and you just left out a comma?
>>> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
Again, I'll repeat myself....
Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches, quite a
few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewerage
into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
> If nobody cared we wouldn't be having this discussion and there
> wouldn't be any regulations at all.
If the government could get away with not giving a damn, they would. The
only thing that stands between you & your shit is your vote.
>>>>waiting until it is too late to reverse or contain the effects.
>>> The problem with your 'err on the side of trying' is you neglect to
>>> consider the cost of your trying.
>>> In the last 120 years mankind has gone through 2 "the planet is warming"
>>> scares and two "a new ice age is coming" scares and we're now
>>> in the third "the planet is warming" scare because, guess what,
>>> climate changes. And if history is any measure then we're due for the
>>> third 'coming ice age' scare in about 20 years.
That's probably true.... I have no argument with that. It's inherent in
mankind's behaviour to take sides in most arguments, which of course, leads
to polarisation & the making of extravagant claims by both sides.
Invariably, the truth lies somewhere in between.
ruff
Chuck Harris
>> Your deductions of what's 'obvious' is flawed and the behavior of your
>> cat doesn't mean every cat on the planet does the same.
>
> OK, I'll say it again. You obviously don't have a cat or have ever studied
> their behaviour.
> They all behave as I have suggested, or at least the vast majority do (the
> ones that no God-playing breeders have stuffed around with excluded).
No they don't! The dominant cat will leave his feces uncovered on top of the
heap. It is only the submissive cat that will bury. When you take a
cat and make him domestic, he considers you to be dominant, and he takes on
a submissive role.... Of course, he still thinks you are incompetent, because
you can't hunt, so he feels contempt for you, and looks for opportunities to
take over, but you are so much bigger...
>> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
>> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
>
> You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it. Which is
> it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to decimals 30
> years ago. Too hard for you were they?
>
>>> These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
>
>> I don't know about you but, like your cat, I don't shit in my bed either.
>
> After some of the crap you've posted here, I'm not so sure about that.
>
>>> All we do is bugger it up, whether it's by polluting the air, the
>>> waterways & the
>>> oceans, or by cutting down old growth forests at such a rate that
>>> countries like
>>> Malaysia & the Phillipines are now net importers of timber, something they
>>> had millions of hectares of just 40 years ago.
>
>> And your cat is polluting whatever the heck it feels like, as long as
>> it ain't where he likes to play.
>
> No he's not. His toilet habits are restricted to a small patch of ground
> which I am able to turn over fairly regularly, preventing any polluting
> whatsoever. Don't like cat's at all do you?
It wouldn't matter whether he used a small patch, or the whole of your
neighborhood. The quantity of "pollutants" he adds to the environment is
the same.
Ultimately the problems with pollution in the environment all come from the
same root cause: overpopulation. What would be acceptable with one family per
hundred acres becomes a big problem when you have 100 families per acre.
The greenies are advocating a romantic lifestyle that is more in tune with
the one family per hundred acre density: burning fallen wood, composting
toilets, collecting rain water, solar power, composting garbage, keeping
chickens and pigs, subsistence gardening ...
Their ideas when extrapolated to 100 families per acre will result in a
mosquito, rat and mouse infested, sewage covered world. The fresh water
supply will be contaminated with bacteria and like city life in the middle
ages, man will die off from disease and plagues. Which appears to be the
ultimate goal (remember man is bad, or as you said: "Man stinks.").
>>> Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
>
>> What's clear is you simple hate people..
>
> I think you meant 'simply' or was that a weird form of insult to go with
> your other weird beliefs, and you just left out a comma?
>
>>>> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
>
> Again, I'll repeat myself....
>
> Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches, quite a
> few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
> rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewerage
> into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
> Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
> doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
That is because they are not willing to pay for a properly designed sewage
treatment system. If they really wanted it changed, and put up the money,
it would get changed.
-Chuck
robert casey
>
>>Suggest you read....
>>http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/03/light-bulbs-and-eco-fascism.html
>
> ** Nice pic of the internals of a CFL there.
>
I've found that with CFLs, it's the florescent bulb part is the part
that usually craps out first. I've been able to reuse the electronic
ballasts to light up a F15T8 florescent tube. Or reuse the electrolytic
caps in old radios or tube amps.
Seems that some manufacturer should be able to place the electronic
ballast in the center of the florescent spiral instead of under it, to
reduce the size of the damm things...
Chuck Harris
My experience doesn't match yours. With the Chinese CFL's
that we get at our local borg, the base unit usually burns
up with lots of micarta smoke. When I do a postmortem, I
always find that the 10uf 250V, 85C filter capacitor has
dried out from the heat. I also find a few flamed resistors,
and the filament of the tube is open.
I get about 1 year out of most units, and have a box full of
the dead burnt remains.
-Chuck
roughplanet
news:ZtSdnTgV0sWYnxjb...@rcn.net...
roughplanet wrote:
>>> Your deductions of what's 'obvious' is flawed and the behavior of your
>>> cat doesn't mean every cat on the planet does the same.
>> OK, I'll say it again. You obviously don't have a cat or have ever
>> studied their behaviour.
>> They all behave as I have suggested, or at least the vast majority do
>> (the ones that no God-playing breeders have stuffed around with
>> excluded).
> No they don't! The dominant cat will leave his feces uncovered on top of
> the
> heap. It is only the submissive cat that will bury. When you take a
> cat and make him domestic, he considers you to be dominant, and he takes
> on
> a submissive role.... Of course, he still thinks you are incompetent,
> because
> you can't hunt, so he feels contempt for you, and looks for opportunities
> to
> take over, but you are so much bigger...
Hey, hang on. You might be on the right track with your dominant cat theory
(or you mightn't) but unless you can actually talk to a cat, your opinions
as to what the cat considers, thinks or feels are just that; opinions.
On the other hand, you might be a breeder, in which case you are God and
know everything the cat does and then some :-).
>>> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
>>> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
>> You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it. Which
>> is it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to decimals
>> 30 years ago. Too hard for you were they?
>>>> These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
>>> I don't know about you but, like your cat, I don't shit in my bed
>>> either.
>> After some of the crap you've posted here, I'm not so sure about that.
>>>> All we do is bugger it up, whether it's by polluting the air, the
>>>> waterways & the oceans, or by cutting down old growth forests at such a
>>>> rate >>>> that countries like Malaysia & the Phillipines are now net
>>>> importers of timber, >>>> something they had millions of hectares of
>>>> just 40 years ago.
>>> And your cat is polluting whatever the heck it feels like, as long as
>>> it ain't where he likes to play.
>> No he's not. His toilet habits are restricted to a small patch of ground
>> which I am able to turn over fairly regularly, preventing any polluting
>> whatsoever. Don't like cat's at all do you?
> It wouldn't matter whether he used a small patch, or the whole of your
> neighborhood. The quantity of "pollutants" he adds to the environment is
> the same.
I'm not sure that many of my neighbours would agree with that. Where he
shits IS what matters, not how much, as I effectively nullify any polluting
effects his faeces might cause.
> Ultimately the problems with pollution in the environment all come from
> the
> same root cause: overpopulation. What would be acceptable with one family
> per
> hundred acres becomes a big problem when you have 100 families per acre.
Which is why more & more Local Governments are insisting that dog owners
clean up their dog's droppings when walking their animals in public places,
and have placed bans on cats roaming the neighbourhood after dark (our
council traps them & makes their owners pay a fine to get them back).
It (our council) is also considering a proposal to make cat owners build
runs for their pets, and again, if they are caught roaming free, quite heavy
fines will apply, or perhaps even more stringent penalties.
> The greenies are advocating a romantic lifestyle that is more in tune with
> the one family per hundred acre density: burning fallen wood, composting
> toilets, collecting rain water, solar power, composting garbage, keeping
> chickens and pigs, subsistence gardening ...
They can advocate anything they like. Only sensible proposals, like saving
water & solar power are likely to get much of a hearing.
> Their ideas when extrapolated to 100 families per acre will result in a
> mosquito, rat and mouse infested, sewage covered world. The fresh water
> supply will be contaminated with bacteria and like city life in the middle
> ages, man will die off from disease and plagues. Which appears to be the
> ultimate goal (remember man is bad, or as you said: "Man stinks.").
Man definitely does stink, but what that has to do with your extrapolation,
which is never likely to happen, I'm not sure. Perhaps you're trying to make
some sort of anti-greenie point, is that it?
C'mon, don't be shy.....out with it. If you're a member of the NRA or a
Midnight Gardener, we'll understand :-).
>>>> Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
>>> What's clear is you simple hate people..
>> I think you meant 'simply' or was that a weird form of insult to go with
>> your other weird beliefs, and you just left out a comma?
>>>>> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
>> Again, I'll repeat myself....
>> Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches,
>> quite a
>> few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
>> rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw
>> sewerage
>> into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
>> Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
>> doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
> That is because they are not willing to pay for a properly designed sewage
> treatment system. If they really wanted it changed, and put up the money,
> it would get changed.
What planet are you on Chuck? Do you REALLY think it is that simple? You
seem to be a little short on real world experience. The sewerage system(s)
that operate in NSW, primarily in the Sydney environs are almost a century
old, and are cobbled together with makeshift measures, primarily because of
our country's preoccupation with privatisation.
Where the profit motive is the only goal, there will be no effort expended
towards any long term solutions, which in the case of sewerage treatment,
are the only ones that will provide any real improvements.
Hence my original statement; "Man stinks" and he's likely to stink a lot
more unless the race to privatise everything from sewerage to prison systems
slows to a trickle (pun intended). QED.
ruff
roughplanet
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:12:56 +1000, "roughplanet"
<rough...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>Ian Mitchell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > Rubbish.
>>>>>>>>> If you say so
>>>>>>>>I do.
> And I'll say it again, your deductions of what's 'obvious' is flawed
No, it's your statement 'The only thing a cat does is wander a few feet over
and crap in your space" that is flawed. And simplistic & emotive to boot.
Admit it, you just don't like cats.
>>They all behave as I have suggested, or at least the vast majority do (the
>>ones that no God-playing breeders have stuffed around with excluded).
> Bull
>>> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
>>> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
>>You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it. Which
>>is
>>it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to decimals 30
>>years ago. Too hard for you were they?
> Doesn't matter where or how many scratches of dirt your cat deigns to
> cover it with it's still a load of piss and crap.
And.... so?
>>>>These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
>>> I don't know about you but, like your cat, I don't shit in my bed
>>> either.
>>After some of the crap you've posted here, I'm not so sure about that.
> You're one to talk.
Oh gawd, now you're resorting to primary school arguments, and that old
saying;
'Never argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with
experience.' is getting more & more appropriate.
>>>> All we do is bugger it up, whether it's by polluting the air, the
>>>> waterways & the
>>>> oceans, or by cutting down old growth forests at such a rate that
>>>> countries like Malaysia & the Phillipines are now net importers of
>>>> timber,
>>>> something they had millions of hectares of just 40 years ago.
>>> And your cat is polluting whatever the heck it feels like, as long as
>>> it ain't where he likes to play.
>>No he's not. His toilet habits are restricted to a small patch of ground
>>which I am able to turn over fairly regularly, preventing any polluting
>>whatsoever. Don't like cat's at all do you?
> What is it about piss and crap that you don't understand? It's piss and
> crap.
> The cat just 'dumped' it somewhere. *You're* the one 'turning it over'
> and playing eco manure pile with it.
>>>>Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
>>> What's clear is you simple hate people..
>>I think you meant 'simply' or was that a weird form of insult to go with
>>your other weird beliefs, and you just left out a comma?
> Oh my. I made a typo.
>>>>> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
>>Again, I'll repeat myself....
>>Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches, quite
>>a
>>few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
>>rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw sewerage
>>into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
>>Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
>>doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
> Odds are 'the people' you speak of haven't got the sense to put up the
> money for a proper treatment plant and not lucky enough to have a 'cat
> master' turning over their shit pile for them.
> I'll give the cat credit for one thing, after he fills up one shit
> pile he just moves on to another instead of bitching that 'someone
> else' doesn't come fix it for him.
>>> If nobody cared we wouldn't be having this discussion and there
>>> wouldn't be any regulations at all.
>>If the government could get away with not giving a damn, they would. The
>>only thing that stands between you & your shit is your vote.
> Governments have been dealing with 'shit' for millennia. Some natural
> and some not.
>>>>>>waiting until it is too late to reverse or contain the effects.
>>>>> The problem with your 'err on the side of trying' is you neglect to
>>>>> consider the cost of your trying.
>>>>> In the last 120 years mankind has gone through 2 "the planet is
>>>>> warming"
>>>>> scares and two "a new ice age is coming" scares and we're now
>>>>> in the third "the planet is warming" scare because, guess what,
>>>>> climate changes. And if history is any measure then we're due for the
>>>>> third 'coming ice age' scare in about 20 years.
>>That's probably true.... I have no argument with that. It's inherent in
>>mankind's behaviour to take sides in most arguments, which of course,
>>leads
>>to polarisation & the making of extravagant claims by both sides.
>>Invariably, the truth lies somewhere in between.
> I disagree that taking a side inherently leads to extravagant claims,
> nor do I believe it an acceptable 'strategy'.
You'd disagree with my proposition no matter what it was, that's perfectly
clear. You're nothing but a troll & deserve to be treated (pun intended once
more) as one.
But you can't disagree with a proposition, rename it a strategy, and then
not believe that it is acceptable. Witgenstein would have a field day with
that one.
Anyway goodbye. You 'win'. Happy now?
ruff
Chuck Harris
.... Of course, he still thinks you are incompetent,
>> because
>> you can't hunt, so he feels contempt for you, and looks for opportunities
>> to
>> take over, but you are so much bigger...
>
> Hey, hang on. You might be on the right track with your dominant cat theory
> (or you mightn't) but unless you can actually talk to a cat, your opinions
> as to what the cat considers, thinks or feels are just that; opinions.
> On the other hand, you might be a breeder, in which case you are God and
> know everything the cat does and then some :-).
I have observed cats for many years. I may not be able to know the exact
nuances of what they are thinking (I'm not sure I want to), but you can
tell by what they do. For instance, it is well documented that the reason
your cat leaves wounded mice, bats, etc. around for you to find is he is trying
to train your sorry self up to be a better hunter. That conclusion can be
drawn from observing the way a mother cat teaches her offspring to hunt: First
she captures an appropriately sized mouse, and then she wounds it so it can't run
away very quickly. Next she presents it to her young to play with. After they
have played for a while, she kills the mouse and it is made available for food.
She wouldn't likely do this for you if she didn't think you were a failure
as a hunter, and needed a lot of additional help... failure <--> incompetent.
That your cat finds you contemptible is evidenced in the continuous stream
of mean little infractions of your rules: The poop in your shoes, searching
out and pissing on your favorite hat, pissing on your side of the bed after
you have disciplined the cat... Every cat owner (that has paid any attention)
can list a number of intentionally mean little things his cat has done to
him.
The poop burying issue is well documented in feline research.
>
>>>> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
>>>> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
>
>>> You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it. Which
>>> is it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to decimals
>>> 30 years ago. Too hard for you were they?
>
>>>>> These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
...
> I'm not sure that many of my neighbours would agree with that. Where he
> shits IS what matters, not how much, as I effectively nullify any polluting
> effects his faeces might cause.
That is just you, the benevolent slave cleaning up after "your" cat, not your
cat's environmental consciousness at work.
>
>> Ultimately the problems with pollution in the environment all come from
>> the
>> same root cause: overpopulation. What would be acceptable with one family
>> per
>> hundred acres becomes a big problem when you have 100 families per acre.
>
> Which is why more & more Local Governments are insisting that dog owners
> clean up their dog's droppings when walking their animals in public places,
> and have placed bans on cats roaming the neighbourhood after dark (our
> council traps them & makes their owners pay a fine to get them back).
> It (our council) is also considering a proposal to make cat owners build
> runs for their pets, and again, if they are caught roaming free, quite heavy
> fines will apply, or perhaps even more stringent penalties.
>
>> The greenies are advocating a romantic lifestyle that is more in tune with
>> the one family per hundred acre density: burning fallen wood, composting
>> toilets, collecting rain water, solar power, composting garbage, keeping
>> chickens and pigs, subsistence gardening ...
>
> They can advocate anything they like. Only sensible proposals, like saving
> water & solar power are likely to get much of a hearing.
Sure they can! They have you believing that man-made CO2 is causing the
Earth's climate to change when every single scrap of evidence shows that
warming temperatures cause the CO2 levels to rise.
>
>> Their ideas when extrapolated to 100 families per acre will result in a
>> mosquito, rat and mouse infested, sewage covered world. The fresh water
>> supply will be contaminated with bacteria and like city life in the middle
>> ages, man will die off from disease and plagues. Which appears to be the
>> ultimate goal (remember man is bad, or as you said: "Man stinks.").
>
> Man definitely does stink, but what that has to do with your extrapolation,
> which is never likely to happen, I'm not sure. Perhaps you're trying to make
> some sort of anti-greenie point, is that it?
> C'mon, don't be shy.....out with it. If you're a member of the NRA or a
> Midnight Gardener, we'll understand :-).
Yes I am a member of the NRA. More than 1/2 of my dues go to wildlife
conservation efforts. There is no hunting without something, or someplace
to hunt.
>>>>> Man stinks. When you worship the dollar, what else can you expect?
>
>>>> What's clear is you simple hate people..
>
>>> I think you meant 'simply' or was that a weird form of insult to go with
>>> your other weird beliefs, and you just left out a comma?
>
>>>>>> Mankind is the only creature that gives a tinker's dam about his crap.
>
>>> Again, I'll repeat myself....
>>> Tell that to the people who live close to Sydney's Northern beaches,
>>> quite a
>>> few of which have sewerage outlets less than 1 km offshore. After heavy
>>> rains, these outfalls dump hundreds of thousands of litres of raw
>>> sewerage
>>> into the ocean, closing the beaches & polluting the sea for weeks on end.
>>> Sure, the people who have to live with the stink care, but the Government
>>> doesn't, and after all, they are the 'creatures' calling the shots.
>
>> That is because they are not willing to pay for a properly designed sewage
>> treatment system. If they really wanted it changed, and put up the money,
>> it would get changed.
>
> What planet are you on Chuck? Do you REALLY think it is that simple?
As an activist that has worked to cause the politicians to change, yes I do
believe it is as simple as getting the people to want the change, and to be
willing to pay for the change.
You
> seem to be a little short on real world experience. The sewerage system(s)
> that operate in NSW, primarily in the Sydney environs are almost a century
> old, and are cobbled together with makeshift measures, primarily because of
> our country's preoccupation with privatisation.
Your country is governed by a government that is elected by the populace.
If you don't like the way they are governing, rally the populace, and vote
them out. But first, I suggest that you have a plan worked out... mobs are
notoriously bad planners.
> Where the profit motive is the only goal, there will be no effort expended
> towards any long term solutions, which in the case of sewerage treatment,
> are the only ones that will provide any real improvements.
>
> Hence my original statement; "Man stinks" and he's likely to stink a lot
> more unless the race to privatise everything from sewerage to prison systems
> slows to a trickle (pun intended). QED.
Again, that you allow your government to operate that way is your choice. If
you don't like it, come up with a plan and sell it to the people. The rest
will follow. QED
-Chuck
robert casey
>> I've found that with CFLs, it's the florescent bulb part is the part
>> that usually craps out first. I've been able to reuse the electronic
>> ballasts to light up a F15T8 florescent tube. Or reuse the
>> electrolytic caps in old radios or tube amps.
>>
> My experience doesn't match yours. With the Chinese CFL's
> that we get at our local borg, the base unit usually burns
> up with lots of micarta smoke. When I do a postmortem, I
> always find that the 10uf 250V, 85C filter capacitor has
> dried out from the heat. I also find a few flamed resistors,
> and the filament of the tube is open.
>
Maybe if you're in a 240VAC country, the parts they use in China to
make the things are too marginal for your 240VAC mains but adequate for
my 120VAC powerline. They probably don't bother to keep separate
inventory for the two different product lines (240VAC vs 120VAC). ?
Eeyore
robert casey wrote:
And why do you think that ?
Voltage rating is highly unlikely to be the cause of burn-up after 1000s of
hours use anyway.
Graham
robert casey
>
>
> And why do you think that ?
>
> Voltage rating is highly unlikely to be the cause of burn-up after 1000s of
> hours use anyway.
>
> Graham
>
>
those on 240V mains?
Eeyore
robert casey wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > And why do you think that ?
> >
> > Voltage rating is highly unlikely to be the cause of burn-up after 1000s of
> > hours use anyway.
>
> forgot to add: Transient spikes on our 120V powerlines not as severe as
> those on 240V mains?
I have no idea.
Graham
Phil Allison
"flipper"
** Ever going to lean how to TRIM - fuckhead ?
Putting 30 words at the bottom of a ** 9K ** poss is totally ASININE !!
....... Phil
RdM
rec.audio.tubes<4684BAB1...@turneraudio.com.au>:
> If you can read dutch, see the site at
>
> http://www.lemnislighting.nl/
http://www.freetranslation.com is useful;- does Dutch, but for some reason,
tonight, here, even the original site comes up blank;- so too the translation.
--
RdM
--
"And it may be that love sometimes occurs without pain or misery".
Annie Proulx, 'The Shipping News'
roughplanet
roughplanet wrote:
>>> I'm not sure that many of my neighbours would agree with that. Where he
> I would also propose that he begins his effort to elicit public support
> with a slight
> deficit by declaring that they all "stink." That tends to, as he himself
> described,
> 'polarize' people.
Read it again flip. I said 'Man stinks', and I meant man not woman. I'm only
polarising half the people, some of the time etc. etc.
ruff
roughplanet
roughplanet wrote:
>>> .... Of course, he still thinks you are incompetent, because you can't
>>> hunt,
>>> so he feels contempt for you, and looks for opportunities to
>>> take over, but you are so much bigger...
>> Hey, hang on. You might be on the right track with your dominant cat
>> theory (or you mightn't) but unless you can actually talk to a cat, your
>> opinions as to what the cat considers, thinks or feels are just that;
>> opinions.
>> On the other hand, you might be a breeder, in which case you are God and
>> know everything the cat does and then some :-).
> I have observed cats for many years.
When, whilst you were shootin' em?
> I may not be able to know the exact nuances of what they are thinking (I'm
> not sure I want to), but you can tell by what they do. For instance, it is
> well documented that the reason your cat leaves wounded mice, bats, etc.
> around for you to find is he is trying to train your sorry self up to be a
> better hunter. That conclusion can be drawn from observing the way a
> mother cat teaches her offspring to hunt: First she captures an
> appropriately sized mouse, and then she wounds it so it can't run away
> very quickly. Next she presents it to her young to play with. After they
> have played for a while, she kills the mouse and it is made available for
> food.
> She wouldn't likely do this for you if she didn't think you were a failure
> as a hunter, and needed a lot of additional help... failure <-->
> incompetent.
Well, as none of my cats (I have had 4) has ever left a dying animal for me
to find, only dead ones, then what do you think they were trying to tell me?
> That your cat finds you contemptible is evidenced in the continuous stream
> of mean little infractions of your rules: The poop in your shoes,
> searching
> out and pissing on your favorite hat, pissing on your side of the bed
> after
> you have disciplined the cat... Every cat owner (that has paid any
> attention)
> can list a number of intentionally mean little things his cat has done to
> him.
Once again, you've got it wrong Chuckie. None of them ever did any of the
things you mentioned, or anything remotely like them. The only time any of
my cats did anything to me was after I had embarrassed them, not
intentionally, but, to give you an example, laughing at them after they
tried to walk on a newspaper I was reading.
I figured I deserved it, and didn't do it again, hence, no more retribution.
> The poop burying issue is well documented in feline research.
>>>>> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
>>>>> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
>>>> You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it.
>>>> Which is it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to
>>>> decimals 30 years ago. Too hard for you were they?
>>>>>> These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
>> I'm not sure that many of my neighbours would agree with that. Where he
>> shits IS what matters, not how much, as I effectively nullify any
>> polluting effects his faeces might cause.
> That is just you, the benevolent slave cleaning up after "your" cat, not
> your
> cat's environmental consciousness at work.
I didn't mention environmental consciousness; that's your theory & you can
keep it.
What I said was that where my cat shits is likely to be of concern to my
neighbours, that's all. Your silly theories are just that, silly, and
because they are unprovable, are totally worthless.
>> Governments are insisting that dog owners clean up their dog's droppings
>> when walking their animals in public places, and have placed bans on
>> cats roaming the neighbourhood after dark (our council traps them & makes
>> their owners pay a fine to get them back).
>> It (our council) is also considering a proposal to make cat owners build
>> runs for their pets, and again, if they are caught roaming free, quite
>> heavy fines will apply, or perhaps even more stringent penalties.
>>> The greenies are advocating a romantic lifestyle that is more in tune
>>> with
>>> the one family per hundred acre density: burning fallen wood, composting
>>> toilets, collecting rain water, solar power, composting garbage, keeping
>>> chickens and pigs, subsistence gardening ...
>> They can advocate anything they like. Only sensible proposals, like
>> saving water & solar power are likely to get much of a hearing.
> Sure they can! They have you believing that man-made CO2 is causing the
> Earth's climate to change when every single scrap of evidence shows that
> warming temperatures cause the CO2 levels to rise.
Wow Chuck, you're really incredible. Not satisfied with being able to read
the mind of my cat, now you're reading mine! How do you know WHAT I BELIEVE,
much less whether or not the greenies have influenced me one way or another?
>> Their ideas when extrapolated to 100 families per acre will result in a
>> mosquito, rat and mouse infested, sewage covered world. The fresh water
>> supply will be contaminated with bacteria and like city life in the
>> middle
>> ages, man will die off from disease and plagues. Which appears to be the
>> ultimate goal (remember man is bad, or as you said: "Man stinks.").
>> Man definitely does stink, but what that has to do with your
>> extrapolation, which is never likely to happen, I'm not sure. Perhaps
>> you're trying to make some sort of anti-greenie point, is that it?
>> C'mon, don't be shy.....out with it. If you're a member of the NRA or a
>> Midnight Gardener, we'll understand :-).
> Yes I am a member of the NRA. More than 1/2 of my dues go to wildlife
> conservation efforts. There is no hunting without something, or someplace
> to hunt.
I just knew it. How many rifles, shotguns & handguns do you own Chuck, and
would you contribute a cent in dues if it didn't guarantee you more animals
for you to kill?
No wonder half the world hates you & your kind. Shoot woodchucks with
anti-tank rifles, do you?
Oh, we have a plan all right. We've achieved one hell of a lot already this
year,
including getting RU 486 removed from the clutches of our URW Catholic
Minister for Health, having our own home-grown terrorist brought back to
Australia, and that's
just for starters.
When the election rolls around in November, we have the numbers to effect
more changes than most people would believe. But in a country that's approx.
2/3 the size of the US, but has only 7% of its population, it's a tad
difficult to achieve much at all without generous donors, you know, like
Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger
et al.
> If you don't like it, come up with a plan and sell it to the people. The
> rest
> will follow. QED
It surely will Chuck, but we'll do it without the need for a bunch of gun
totin' 4WD'g, hound dawg breedin' Republican rednecks on our side.
Regards,
ruff
Chuck Harris
>
>> I have observed cats for many years.
>
> When, whilst you were shootin' em?
No, they were beloved pets of mine. I have never killed, or
shot at a cat.
...
>> She wouldn't likely do this for you if she didn't think you were a failure
>> as a hunter, and needed a lot of additional help... failure <-->
>> incompetent.
>
> Well, as none of my cats (I have had 4) has ever left a dying animal for me
> to find, only dead ones, then what do you think they were trying to tell me?
I think they were telling you that you were too pathetic a hunter to even
warrant a try at chasing a wounded animal. It was an offering of food.
>> That your cat finds you contemptible is evidenced in the continuous stream
>> of mean little infractions of your rules: The poop in your shoes,
>> searching
>> out and pissing on your favorite hat, pissing on your side of the bed
>> after
>> you have disciplined the cat... Every cat owner (that has paid any
>> attention)
>> can list a number of intentionally mean little things his cat has done to
>> him.
>
> Once again, you've got it wrong Chuckie. None of them ever did any of the
> things you mentioned, or anything remotely like them. The only time any of
> my cats did anything to me was after I had embarrassed them, not
> intentionally, but, to give you an example, laughing at them after they
> tried to walk on a newspaper I was reading.
> I figured I deserved it, and didn't do it again, hence, no more retribution.
Hmm? First you tell me they don't, then you tell me how they did...
I don't think you can embarrass a cat Ruffie. They don't have the same
values as humans, and I can't recall ever seeing one do anything that would
even remotely resemble a laugh. So I doubt that they understand the meaning
of your laughter. To them it is just one more of the many puzzling noises you
make.
>> The poop burying issue is well documented in feline research.
>
>>>>>> However, whether it's 10 feet or 30 feet is irrelevant. Your cat
>>>>>> doesn't give a tinker's dam what his piss and crap does to the planet.
>
>>>>> You're either not reading what I said, or just can't understand it.
>>>>> Which is it? I didn't even mention feet, as unlike you, I converted to
>>>>> decimals 30 years ago. Too hard for you were they?
>
>>>>>>> These creatures are programmed to look after their environment.
>
>>> I'm not sure that many of my neighbours would agree with that. Where he
>>> shits IS what matters, not how much, as I effectively nullify any
>>> polluting effects his faeces might cause.
>
>> That is just you, the benevolent slave cleaning up after "your" cat, not
>> your
>> cat's environmental consciousness at work.
>
> I didn't mention environmental consciousness; that's your theory & you can
> keep it.
Sure you did, you said cats were wired to protect their environment.
> What I said was that where my cat shits is likely to be of concern to my
> neighbours, that's all. Your silly theories are just that, silly, and
> because they are unprovable, are totally worthless.
And yours are the same even more so. You are looking at your cat's behavior
like it was a little human. It isn't.
...
>>> They can advocate anything they like. Only sensible proposals, like
>>> saving water & solar power are likely to get much of a hearing.
>
>> Sure they can! They have you believing that man-made CO2 is causing the
>> Earth's climate to change when every single scrap of evidence shows that
>> warming temperatures cause the CO2 levels to rise.
>
> Wow Chuck, you're really incredible. Not satisfied with being able to read
> the mind of my cat, now you're reading mine! How do you know WHAT I BELIEVE,
> much less whether or not the greenies have influenced me one way or another?
I'll have to check the record, but I am pretty sure I saw something from you about
global warming. If I misremembered, I apologize.... though I am not sure
why I should offer that little token of politeness.
>>> Their ideas when extrapolated to 100 families per acre will result in a
>>> mosquito, rat and mouse infested, sewage covered world. The fresh water
>>> supply will be contaminated with bacteria and like city life in the
>>> middle
>>> ages, man will die off from disease and plagues. Which appears to be the
>>> ultimate goal (remember man is bad, or as you said: "Man stinks.").
>
>>> Man definitely does stink, but what that has to do with your
>>> extrapolation, which is never likely to happen, I'm not sure. Perhaps
>>> you're trying to make some sort of anti-greenie point, is that it?
>>> C'mon, don't be shy.....out with it. If you're a member of the NRA or a
>>> Midnight Gardener, we'll understand :-).
>
>> Yes I am a member of the NRA. More than 1/2 of my dues go to wildlife
>> conservation efforts. There is no hunting without something, or someplace
>> to hunt.
>
> I just knew it. How many rifles, shotguns & handguns do you own Chuck, and
> would you contribute a cent in dues if it didn't guarantee you more animals
> for you to kill?
Actually, my membership has more to do with political reasons. But I can see
that you wouldn't understand that.
> No wonder half the world hates you & your kind.
I doubt that I could even garner a yawn out of half of the world, let alone
a feeling of hate. But I guess you polled them all, so you would know.
..Shoot woodchucks with
> anti-tank rifles, do you?
Not to my recollection. Do you?
I do have a rather serious problem with woodchuck holes in my fields and
pastures. Do you have a non violent solution? (Ignoring them just gets me
tossed off of my tractor, and horse legs broken.)
...
>
>> Your country is governed by a government that is elected by the populace.
>> If you don't like the way they are governing, rally the populace, and vote
>> them out. But first, I suggest that you have a plan worked out... mobs
>> are
>> notoriously bad planners.
>
> Oh, we have a plan all right. We've achieved one hell of a lot already this
> year,
> including getting RU 486 removed from the clutches of our URW Catholic
> Minister for Health, having our own home-grown terrorist brought back to
> Australia, and that's
> just for starters.
> When the election rolls around in November, we have the numbers to effect
> more changes than most people would believe. But in a country that's approx.
> 2/3 the size of the US, but has only 7% of its population, it's a tad
> difficult to achieve much at all without generous donors, you know, like
> Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger
> et al.
Political change can happen, but it is very hard work. It may surprise
you, but there is more disposable money in the pockets of Joe and Jane Sixpack
than in the hands of all of the Bill Gateses, etc.
Ask Derek Obama, one of the candidates for president in the US. He has
raised more money than Hillary Clinton, the darling of the rich liberals.
>> If you don't like it, come up with a plan and sell it to the people. The
>> rest
>> will follow. QED
>
> It surely will Chuck, but we'll do it without the need for a bunch of gun
> totin' 4WD'g, hound dawg breedin' Republican rednecks on our side.
I am pretty sure that my political affiliation has never been discussed, or
even hinted at. Nor have I recommended that you use guns, 4WD, WD40, or hound
dawg's to achieve your political goals. So why bring up your favorite offensive
anti-American stereotypes? (Unless your goal is to be offensive?)
-Chuck
J.P.
Yeah, I have a half dozen that maybe made a year also...I was going to
take them back but have misplaced the receipts and they have changed
designs.I don't leave 'em on when I leave cause they might burn the
house down...sure I want to replace all my bulbs with accidents
waiting to happen...but for just general lighting to get around, they
work just fine...J.P.
J.P.
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"J.P." wrote:
>
>> Well, if that is the same light
>
>I'm sure it is
>
>
>> then I misheard 60 watts for 60 lumens..but so what..
>
>So what ??? !!!!
>
>There's about a ten times difference ! As if a fuckwit like you would understand or
>care. Check your facts before posting drivel again.
>
>As it is, that lamp will be a poor substitute for a 25W incandescent.
>
>Graham
Hey since you think youre perfect Jesus..why dontcha heal this wart on
my ass.. it's too bad your sense of humor was obviously replaced with
an asshole...
J.P.
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Patrick Turner wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > "J.P." wrote:
>> >
>> > > Well, if that is the same light
>> >
>> > I'm sure it is
>> >
>> > > then I misheard 60 watts for 60 lumens..but so what..
>> >
>> > So what ??? !!!!
>> >
>> > There's about a ten times difference ! As if a fuckwit like you would understand or
>> > care. Check your facts before posting drivel again.
>> >
>> > As it is, that lamp will be a poor substitute for a 25W incandescent.
>>
>> The site at
>>
>> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/new_led_lamp_ph.php
>>
>> has a lamp which requires 3.5W of electric power to produce **60 lumens
>> per watt** of light, so 3.5W gives 210lumens.
>>
>> a "14W" LED lamp would make 840 lumens, and thus be much more efficient
>> that any IL.
>
>So far it seems, LED lamps top out at 3-4 W.
>
>
>> If you can read dutch, see the site at
>>
>> http://www.lemnislighting.nl/
>
>I found it the other day but no it wasn't much help on account of the language.
>
>Another problem with white LEDs is that the more efficient ones tend to have a very high
>colour temperature, typically 6000 - 7000 K which looks very blue. Not really very
>satisfactory for domestic use. There are 'warm white' ones too but the luminous
>efficiency for these drops off drastically.
>
>Graham
You can't even read Dutch? God, what a dumbass...
J.P.
No, you'll do or say anything to replay that vain imagination the you
have one upped your dead old ass over someone else maggot brain...
J.P.
Just hire Eyesore to come over and eat all that shit...right down his
alley..maybe he'll just fly over like Harry Potter with his genious
mentality...
Fun Tyme
$$ - More information for those who *would* learn.
DURHAM, NC, MARCH 21, 2007 — Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE), a market
leader in LED solid-state lighting components, today announced that it
is shipping warm white XLamp LEDs that produce up to 124 lumens at a
correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3,000 K when driven at 700 mA.
Unlike most warm white power LEDs, XLamp LEDs are qualified to run at up
to 700 mA. With this announcement, XLamp LED lighting-class brightness
and efficiency is now available in warm white from Cree.
The availability of high-performance LEDs across a full range of color
temperatures can allow lighting manufacturers to build cost-effective
LED fixtures for many indoor home and office applications, helping meet
the need for energy-efficient, environmentally friendly lighting. The
new warm white is available in both the XLamp XR-E and XR-C power LED
families that are binned to the proposed ANSI standard, allowing
manufacturers to select LEDs the same way they select bulbs today.
“The LED industry has struggled to boost the brightness and efficiency
of warm white LEDs, which have historically offered significantly lower
performance than cool white LEDs,” stated Norbert Hiller, Cree Lighting
general manager and vice president. “The new XLamp warm white LEDs hold
a stable color point and offer lighting designers and architects the
first lighting-class warm white LED light source for general
illumination applications that have traditionally been lit with
incandescent light sources.”
$$ - As stated previously, development continues on efficient devices at
colour temperatures more pleasing to some eyes...and NO - I don't sell them.
The above quoted information C+Peed from :-
http://www.cutter.com.au/index.php
- down the RHS column.
Eeyore
Fun Tyme wrote:
> $$ - More information for those who *would* learn.
>
> DURHAM, NC, MARCH 21, 2007 — Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE), a market
> leader in LED solid-state lighting components, today announced that it
> is shipping warm white XLamp LEDs that produce up to 124 lumens at a
> correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3,000 K when driven at 700 mA.
> Unlike most warm white power LEDs, XLamp LEDs are qualified to run at up
> to 700 mA. With this announcement, XLamp LED lighting-class brightness
> and efficiency is now available in warm white from Cree.
124 lumens @ 700mA. The forward voltage is ~ 4V.
http://www.cree.com/Products/lightleds.htm
So that's 44 lumens / W - still well below the typical 60 for CFLs.
I suggest YOU do some learning about how to read press releases (and the lies therein) !
Graham
Patrick Turner
Here they are replacing the ILs in traffic lights at intersections
with what appear to be brighter LED based red, green and yellow lights.
Wow, are they bright! And of course maybe they last longer, and the
savings on
goods and services to replace blown lights in such critical places
is a form of greenhouse reductions.
We need everything to last 30 years.
Houses, cars, people, wives even, vacuum tubes, and all that other stuff
that shouldn't need
to be replaced so soon.
Patrick Turner.