Another reason ...
Arfa Daily
here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started it
all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has been
getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the ballast
enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there, have just
cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging down, in a
semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and decorative
lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that has been forced
on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green issues with a dubious
foundation in fact.
I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and swear
by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first appeared,
right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...
I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of incandescents,
including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post haste. I have also
just started trying out the halogen versions of traditional light bulbs,
which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox "book of energy savers",
even though they only consume a few watts less than their equivalent
light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus far, I am impressed. I
now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent, fitted to my hallway main
light fixture. It is very bright, very easy (for me anyway) to see by, and
has a good colour spectrum, not in the slightest way offensive to my eyes,
unlike the CFLs, which no matter how much anyone says that *they* can't tell
the difference with, *I* can ... d :-\
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and swear
> by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first appeared,
> right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...
It's a matter of use and taste. I would not put one in a reading light,
but for general illumination (but not base up), they are fine.
For example, an 11 watt CFL is just perfect for my bathroom, so that at
3am when I stumble in half asleep without my glasses to use the toilet, I
don't trip over the bathtub (it's recessed into the floor). A 11 watt or
even a 30 watt incandescent bulb would not be bright enough.
On the other hand, if I had two 35 watt flourescent lights installed for
more reasonable use, such as being able to read while on the toilet, seeing
well enough to take a bath or shower, or even brushing my teeth.
So in general, I save a lot of money on electricity using one, but
don't expect it to be something it's not.
> I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of incandescents,
> including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post haste.
As soon as you have the bulbs in hand, share the URL. :-)
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)
Dave Plowman (News)
My home workshop is actually a converted bedroom - and when building it
tried to make things as easy as possible to revert back to that when I get
too old to use it. ;-) Ie, any time soon...
The workbenches all have decent lighting above them, but the switches
aren't at the door so I still have a central pendant fitting for just
general illumination. Which was fitted with a clear 150 watt tungsten. Now
blown my last spare of this size.
So after a deal of looking, got a spiral CFL said to be a 120 watt
equivalent. Is it hell - it's dimmer than a 100 watt pearl. And a bilious
shade of yellow. And it takes ages to get to full output - even at an
ambient temp of 20C.
I do like the mains halogen types, though, apart from cost. Have a 100
watt one in the anglepoise at the electronics bench. At my age you need
lots of light when examining PCBs, etc. And that light quality is just
right.
--
*The soldier who survived pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Arfa Daily
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5174711...@davenoise.co.uk...
Yes Dave. All agreed.
Geoff. Per your request for a URL of someone selling 'proper' light bulbs
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/bulbfinder/?w=51-100&v=220-250&c=Bayonet&f=Pearl
or
http://www.mr-resistor.co.uk/item.aspx?g=18&t=324&r=351&i=3189&a=0
Arfa
Dave H.
"Arfa Daily" wrote...
>
> I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of incandescents,
> including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post haste. I have also
> just started trying out the halogen versions of traditional light bulbs,
> which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox "book of energy savers",
> even though they only consume a few watts less than their equivalent
> light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus far, I am impressed. I
> now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent, fitted to my hallway main
> light fixture. It is very bright, very easy (for me anyway) to see by, and
> has a good colour spectrum, not in the slightest way offensive to my eyes,
> unlike the CFLs, which no matter how much anyone says that *they* can't
> tell the difference with, *I* can ... d :-\
>
>
My Shed is lit by 75W "eco" halogens (only 3 of 'em so far) plus one in the
Danglepoise over the measuring and marking-out "table", very good light. I'm
fitting a 50W 12V halogen in the lathe's worklight (easier to find than 50V
incandescents around here) so will see (I hope) how that works out.
Of course you can tell the difference re colour spectra - the CFLs (and
worse, "white" LEDs) give 3 narrow bands centred on the eye's sensitivities
to RGB light (which works ok with emittive displays) so only illuminate 3
colours correctly when looking at reflective/absorbtive materials - any
colours in between the 3 narrow peaks won't be rendered correctly, for
values of "rendered under a full-spectrum light" as per sunlight,
incandescent lights, even full moonlight...
They're just adequate for the lav's, hallways, front porch and the cluttered
loft though.
Incandescents also have major green bonuses re recycling or landfill - by
design they don't contain any mercury, other toxic heavy metals, radioactive
materials or toxic organic materials (unlike CFLs), can be run through a
crusher to recover the glasses and metals separately, are far cheaper and
simpler to manufacture - one wonders whether the powers that be actually
considered the whole lifecycle of CFLs when promoting them as "green"? In
the USA and probably in the EU they're classified as "hazardous waste" as
they fail the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure test hence much more
onerous disposal requirements.
Just my ha'pence worth,
Dave H.
--
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)
"Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men" -
Douglas Bader
Arfa Daily
"Dave H." <hopefuldave_does...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3RCo.28888$a32...@newsfe21.ams2...
Oh yes, Dave. You are preaching to the converted ! Probably, actually, to
the original pastor !! I'm famous on the 'net for crying about CFLs,
lead-free solder, and eco-bollox in general. I have had a good rant many
times about the eco 'credentials' of this so-called 'green' technology,
including the hidden costs of manufacturing, shipping, and disposing of
CFLs - and ugly windmills all over the land and seascapes and tidal
electricity mills and now fields of PV panels.
I just wish that some of the politicians and
'save-the-planet-green-mist-brigade-do-gooders', would actually stop for a
moment and temporarily put aside their evangelical fervour, and have a
realistic look at the wider picture. It's just so frustrating to see good,
proven, mature and reliable technologies, which were developed over many
years with very good reasons for the changes and developments to them,
displaced by these substitute (NOT replacement) technologies, which have
been hurried into production without due respect for many affected areas,
just to satisfy directives and personal 'missions' being thrust upon the
population by politicians, think tanks, and faceless committees and
commissions, desperately trying to either make a name for themselves, or
preserve their jobs and pensions ... :-(
I'm not against responsible use of the planet's resources, and recycling
where appropriate, but it has all turned into nothing short of a religion in
the last few years, without any consideration of issues besides the green
ones, and it really makes me mad that we're all rolling over and letting it
wash over us, in the name of 'doing our bit'.
See ? You've got me going again ... :-)
Arfa
William Sommerwerck
> including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post haste. I have also
> just started trying out the halogen versions of traditional light bulbs,
> which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox "book of energy savers",
> even though they only consume a few watts less than their equivalent
> light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus far, I am impressed. I
> now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent, fitted to my hallway main
> light fixture. It is very bright, very easy (for me anyway) to see by, and
> has a good colour spectrum, not in the slightest way offensive to my eyes,
> unlike the CFLs, which no matter how much anyone says that *they* can't
tell
> the difference with, *I* can ... d :-\
Don't expect it to last very. If you don't run it long enough to engage the
halogen cycle, the bulb will burn out faster than a conventional
incandescent.
Several weeks ago I said I'd switched to all fluorescents. I was wrong. The
stairwell and hallway lamps are all incandescent. (Almost all of them are
still working after 10 years.) Fixtures that are turned on only briefly
should be regular incandescents -- or LEDs! Other types are not appropriate.
Jim Yanik
news:ibgphk$dr0$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
I have 130V "contractor" incandescents in my apartment.
there's one bulb in the bathroom fixture(8 40w mini-bulbs) that is
original,still working after 25 years. One in my dining room [heavily
used]lasted 15 years,but that one was on a dimmer.
I use CFLs where a light stays on a long time[living room],and
incandescents for short on-off applications.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Oh yes, Dave. You are preaching to the converted ! Probably, actually, to
> the original pastor !! I'm famous on the 'net for crying about CFLs,
> lead-free solder, and eco-bollox in general. I have had a good rant many
> times about the eco 'credentials' of this so-called 'green' technology,
> including the hidden costs of manufacturing, shipping, and disposing of
> CFLs - and ugly windmills all over the land and seascapes and tidal
> electricity mills and now fields of PV panels.
You don't really remember who invented global warming do you?
Back in the mid 1980's when the coal miner's strike brought the UK economy
to its knees (the pound was $1.05), Margaret Thatcher came up with it as a
way of preventing the miners from ever having a politicial voice again.
The whole idea was to make coal and the miners so "dirty" to the common
man that the mines would be closed and they would be the last generation
of miners destined to finish out their (longer) lives on the dole.
It sort of worked until Al Gore got into the carbon credit business. He
had a professional "pitch" put together to get investors (something
every startup does) and it took off. In the end it became the power point
pitch that won a Nobel prize.
It's not as far fetched as you think. Before she got into politics,
Thatcher was an industrial engineer and is the mother of modern ice
cream. She calculated the exact proportion of air that could be added to
ice cream and still sold as ice cream.
Now except for home made and few specialty products, all ice cream is made
from a variation of her formula.
Dave Plowman (News)
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Don't expect it to last very. If you don't run it long enough to engage
> the halogen cycle, the bulb will burn out faster than a conventional
> incandescent.
I'm not convinced about this. I have lots of 12v halogens on dimmers, and
their life doesn't seem any different from those which aren't. If
anything, longer. Nor have they blackened as some say should happen.
One thing that does annoy is most CFLs have a shorter life than claimed
when hung with the connector at the top - as most incandescent lamps. Due
to the heat getting to the electronics.
I bought a very expensive GE RO80 CFL spot which claimed a very long life
- precisely because it was difficult to change. And that failed after
about 1500 hours - because of overheating, I was told. In a fitting
designed for a 100 watt incandescent.
WTF is the point of a spot which can't be pointed where you want the light
to land?
And giving an equivalent light output based on some ancient incandescent
bulb no one ever uses?
--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same
Dave Plowman (News)
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
> Back in the mid 1980's when the coal miner's strike brought the UK
> economy to its knees (the pound was $1.05), Margaret Thatcher came up
> with it as a way of preventing the miners from ever having a politicial
> voice again.
And incidentally the rest of the working class population in the UK. As
well as plenty of the middle classes too. The UK is strange in that many
seem to want others to be low paid, rather than all well paid.
> The whole idea was to make coal and the miners so "dirty" to the common
> man that the mines would be closed and they would be the last generation
> of miners destined to finish out their (longer) lives on the dole.
And, of course, North Sea gas was just coming on stream. Now, it is well
past peak prododuction. So our now converted power stations rely on
imported gas. At whatever those who sell it wish to charge.
Who'd have thought a politician would go for short term gain? ;-(
--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?
William Sommerwerck
> Thatcher was an industrial engineer and is the mother of modern
> ice cream. She calculated the exact proportion of air that could
> be added to ice cream and still sold as ice cream.
> Now except for home made and few specialty products, all ice
> cream is made from a variation of her formula.
I'm certain that the concept of "overrun" long predates Maggie.
All ice cream needs at least a little air, or it would be very hard and
dense. In the US, the maximum amount allowed is 50% by volume.
William Sommerwerck
>> the halogen cycle, the bulb will burn out faster than a conventional
>> incandescent.
> I'm not convinced about this. I have lots of 12v halogens on dimmers,
> and their life doesn't seem any different from those which aren't. If
> anything, longer. Nor have they blackened as some say should happen.
It depend on how far you dim them. If you dim just a little bit, they'll be
at the point where the temperature is extremely high, but not high enough
for the halogen cycle to kick in. Result: short life.
But if you dim fairly far down, you'll be below that range, and they'll last
"forever".
> And giving an equivalent light output based on some ancient incandescent
> bulb no one ever uses?
It provides a reference point most people are familiar with. In 20 years, it
will have disappeared.
D Yuniskis
Arfa Daily wrote:
> I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
> incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
<puzzled> Can't you (still) purchase these over-the-counter?
I'll admit to not having gone shopping for any recently (as I
have several dozen of various bulb types on the shelf) but
i didn't realize they have (?) disappeared...
(which also makes me wonder if lead solder has gone this route)
> haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
> traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
> "book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
> than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
I found the halogens to be a harsh light. Love them outdoors
(can you spell "bright as day"?) but I've removed all of the
indoor bulbs.
> far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent,
> fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
> (for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
> slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
> much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can
> ... d :-\
We're waiting for dimmable LED lamps (that won't require growing
extra limbs to purchase)...
Arfa Daily
"D Yuniskis" <not.goi...@seen.com> wrote in message
news:ibh5vs$i2l$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Hi Arfa,
>
> Arfa Daily wrote:
>> I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of incandescents,
>> including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
>
> <puzzled> Can't you (still) purchase these over-the-counter?
> I'll admit to not having gone shopping for any recently (as I
> have several dozen of various bulb types on the shelf) but
> i didn't realize they have (?) disappeared...
In theory, they have this side of the pond. There was EU legislation put in
place - that our government of course felt it necessary to sign up to -
which phased out incandescent bulbs with a pearl diffuse envelope. 60
watters were to be the first to go, followed by 100s. Clear envelopes
however, were to remain available, at least for the time being. So all of
the supermarkets and sheds stopped selling 60 watt pearl bulbs, ahead of the
'ban' to make sure that they complied, and were not left with cartloads of
unsellable items on their hands. However, as I understand it, due to a
governmental administrative snafu, the actual legislation was never enacted
in the UK, leaving the way wide open for internet sellers, to just carry on
as they were, and take full advantage of people's natural tendencies to
stock up. I guess that the supermarkets etc have not restocked to make sure
that a) they don't catch a cold if the situation suddenly changes, and b)
they don't look bad that they've sold out on their eco-bollox credibility
ratings.
>
> (which also makes me wonder if lead solder has gone this route)
No, not really. Standard leaded solder has disappeared from all commercially
available electronic equipment, with the exception of classes of items such
as avionics, life support, and military (draw your own conclusions on this)
which have been granted dispensations to continue to manufacture in leaded
technology. This has been the case since June 2006 when the RoHS directive
came into full operation. However, there is no requirement for equipment
manufactured and brought to market before that date, and perfectly legally
constructed using non RoHS compliant materials, including solder, to be
repaired using anything other than originally specified non-compliant parts
and solder. Indeed, it is considered to be not particularly metallurgically
good to mix the two types of technology. There is also no requirement for
items constructed for your personal use, and not to be offered for resale,
to be constructed with lead-free parts and solder. For these reasons,
traditional 60/40 solder is still readily available from all the usual parts
supply houses, and is expected to continue to be for the foreseeable future.
>
>> haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
>> traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
>> "book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
>> than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
>
> I found the halogens to be a harsh light. Love them outdoors
> (can you spell "bright as day"?) but I've removed all of the
> indoor bulbs.
Really ? I have found the light to be perfectly pleasant, if perhaps a
little bright. Maybe that is your interpretation of "harsh" ?
>
>> far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent,
>> fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
>> (for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
>> slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
>> much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ...
>> d :-\
>
> We're waiting for dimmable LED lamps (that won't require growing
> extra limbs to purchase)...
Although like CFLs, they do seem to be getting a little better, I've yet to
see any that come close to other lighting technologies. My local supermarket
has a number of floodlight fixtures for the car park, split between wall and
pole mounts. Until a couple of weeks ago, these were fitted with some kind
of metal halide or maybe high pressure sodium bulb. Whatever they were, they
were a pale yellow, and did a grand job of lighting the car park in all
weather conditions. They have now replaced the fittings with white LED
arrays. I would guess that each one is probably a 10 x 5 matrix, so 50 LEDs.
They are so bright that you can't look at them so what power rating are they
? 1 watters ? or 3s maybe ? Whatever, still a pretty significant power draw
over 50 of them. However, bright as they are, the light from them is
"harsh" - there's that word again - cold and shadowy. They don't actually
come close to the performance of the previous floodlights, whatever exact
technology they were. It will be interesting to see how well they penetrate
fog, as we're now into that season. When low pressure sodiums were first
introduced for street lighting, as I recall, fog penetration - which *is*
inescapably good for yellow light - was one of the cited advantages for the
technology. Certainly where you find white (mercury vapour ? egg shaped
bulbs) high intensity street lighting in use, it performs nothing like as
well in fog.
Arfa
David Sanders
> Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ?
No. I have a tendency to not read boring bullshit.
--
Shit! I thought no one knew, goddammit!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29p4ody
Me, jacking off! http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xpntge Available For
Lessons!
Jeffrey Angus
> introduced for street lighting, as I recall, fog penetration - which
> *is* inescapably good for yellow light - was one of the cited advantages
> for the technology. Certainly where you find white (mercury vapour ? egg
> shaped bulbs) high intensity street lighting in use, it performs nothing
> like as well in fog.
Additionally, it was touted as "shadow free" which was supposed to help
the police "find the bad guys" in higher crime areas.
Jeff
Jeff Liebermann
<arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>No, not really. Standard leaded solder has disappeared from all commercially
>available electronic equipment, with the exception of classes of items such
>as avionics, life support, and military (draw your own conclusions on this)
>which have been granted dispensations to continue to manufacture in leaded
>technology. This has been the case since June 2006 when the RoHS directive
>came into full operation. However, there is no requirement for equipment
>manufactured and brought to market before that date, and perfectly legally
>constructed using non RoHS compliant materials, including solder, to be
>repaired using anything other than originally specified non-compliant parts
>and solder. Indeed, it is considered to be not particularly metallurgically
>good to mix the two types of technology. There is also no requirement for
>items constructed for your personal use, and not to be offered for resale,
>to be constructed with lead-free parts and solder. For these reasons,
>traditional 60/40 solder is still readily available from all the usual parts
>supply houses, and is expected to continue to be for the foreseeable future.
A bit of trivia on lead. See PDF or XLS for USA lead production at:
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/>
Despite the RoHS ban, new production (mining or primary production) in
the USA has dropped drastically over the years, but recycling
(secondary production) has made up the difference. If you look at the
lead-use numbers above, there's a decrease in the use of lead in
solder, which is more than compensated for by the increased use of
lead in other areas. At best, overall consumption is fairly flat,
with a slight drop due to the current recession.
More on lead:
<http://www.basemetals.com/html/pbinfo.htm>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Meat Plow
> Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ? Well,
> here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started
> it all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has
> been getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the
> ballast enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there,
> have just cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging
> down, in a semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and
> decorative lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that
> has been forced on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green
> issues with a dubious foundation in fact.
I'm on my 2nd year of running a 100 watt equiv 6500k CFL upside down and
enclosed in a globe all year long dusk to dawn. I guess the brand does
matter in this case Osram/Sylvania. And there was no indication on the
package of any severe duty specifications.
--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse
Trevor Wilson
"Arfa Daily" <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:QAOCo.118328$Dv.1...@newsfe07.ams2...
**Why would you stock up on incandescents? In a few years, LEDs will be
pretty much the standard and reasonably priced and they keep their colour
temperature when dimmed. As for experiences, mine is all good (with CFLs).
In the past 7 years, I've had two failures (out of 19 installed). One I
dropped and the other a possum sat on it. I either use CFLs or straight
tubes just about everywhere. When I really need a lot of light, I hook up my
80 Watt (or 160) halide. Either one makes a 500 Watt halogen look sick.
There are a few places in my homoe where I still have
incandescents/halogens. I can't wait to dump them. They're unreliable pieces
of shit. Give me CFLs any day. Or LEDs. Or halides, when I need them.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Archon
peoples throats than actual performance. LCD monitors were trashed by
computer critics when they first came out (rightly so) but now it would
be a fool who buys a CRT monitor, no need for gov't intervention, the
"people" made their own decision. As for CFL reliability, the QC has got
worse, last pack of 6 from Costco , 2 were dead, one failed
spectacularly after 20 minutes, the others are fine but I doubt will
last the quoted lifetime. Also it would be useful if there was an easy
way to dispose of the blasted things.
JC
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
>one failed spectacularly after 20 minutes
Care to elaborate?
D Yuniskis
>> You don't really remember who invented global warming do you?
>> It's not as far fetched as you think. Before she got into politics,
>> Thatcher was an industrial engineer and is the mother of modern
>> ice cream. She calculated the exact proportion of air that could
>> be added to ice cream and still sold as ice cream.
>
>> Now except for home made and few specialty products, all ice
>> cream is made from a variation of her formula.
>
> I'm certain that the concept of "overrun" long predates Maggie.
>
> All ice cream needs at least a little air, or it would be very hard and
That depends on the base used -- as well as other ingredients.
And, of course, how long you let it ripen. E.g., fruits
tend to bring too much water to the mix; sugar substitutes
result in insufficient volume (I suspect sugar also lowers
the freezing point of the mix?)
My butter pecan Rx can tolerate extended ripening before
becoming "hard as a rock" (N.B. ripening seems to be a
self-contradictory term wrt ice cream!)
You can still-freeze some Rx's while others seem to need a
dasher-on-steroids. :<
> dense. In the US, the maximum amount allowed is 50% by volume.
It's always fun to watch the expression on someone's face
when they taste *real* "iceD cream"!
Archon
> Archon wrote:
>> one failed spectacularly after 20 minutes
>
> Care to elaborate?
>
> Geoff.
>
>
>
enough smoke to set off the smoke alarm.
JC
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily = a Fucking Liar"
> Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ?
** A whole pack of stupid, fucking lies.
> That one that I put in my bench light, that started it all, has now become
> so dim, that it is worse than useless.
** So you used an old, very worn out and unsuitable colour temp CFL.
Wot a fucking MORON !!!!!!!!!!!!
> It has been getting worse and worse over the last week.
** It was WORN OUT when you put it in - you fucking LIAR !!
> There are signs of the ballast enclosure running hot,
** No nearly as hot an a normal lamp runs.
> I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and swear
> by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
> appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...
** YOU are a DAMN LIAR !!
YOU are ** by your own admission** COLOUR BLIND !!
YOU are posting piles of absolute FUCKING BOLLOCKS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
God I hope this stinking pile of autistic, pommy shit electrocutes itself.
.... Phil
Michael A. Terrell
Phil Allison wrote:
Take your medication, Phyllis.
Michael A. Terrell
Come on. It was just getting warmed up. ;-)
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
Phil Allison
Phil Allison
Phil Allison
David Sanders
> God I hope this stinking pile of autistic, pommy shit electrocutes itself.
Only after he gets blown by goats...or me.
William Sommerwerck
That is, high-butterfat ice cream with low overrun. The University of
Maryland dairy store sold such ice cream, and it was a wonderful. Even the
"premium" brands don't match that quality.
Arfa Daily
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8k399...@mid.individual.net...
Now now Philip. You know we've all told you about this behaviour before. You
know what comes next don't you ? No, don't play dumb - you do know ...
That's right, you get to go on the naughty step !
Now be a good boy, take your meds - you have forgotten again haven't you,
you naughty naughty boy - and piss off back under your antipodean stone.
Whilst we all laugh at you (again)
Twat
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"David Sanders" <sande...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ibhsv5$ku6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
And another twat. Jacking off behind his computer. Sad sad man ...
Arfa
Phil Allison
"Arfa Daily = a fucking TROLL "
> Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ?
** A whole pack of stupid, fucking lies.
> That one that I put in my bench light, that started it all, has now become
> so dim, that it is worse than useless.
** So you used an old, very worn out and unsuitable colour temp CFL.
Wot an utter, fucking MORON !!!!!!!!!!!!
> It has been getting worse and worse over the last week.
** It was WORN OUT when you put it in - you fucking LIAR !!
> There are signs of the ballast enclosure running hot,
** No nearly as hot an a normal lamp runs.
> I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and swear
> by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
> appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...
** YOU are a DAMN LIAR !!
YOU are ** by your own admission** COLOUR BLIND !!
YOU are posting piles of absolute FUCKING BOLLOCKS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
God I hope this stinking pile of retarded, autistic, pommy shit
electrocutes itself.
.... Phil
N_Cook
On the wider field of RoHS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/10/ducks-lead-shot
Law banning use of lead shot in duck hunts ignored
Lead pellets still used as ammunition to shoot ducks, says Wildfowl and
Wetlands Trust
* James Meikle
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 17.20 GMT
Duck hunters are flouting the law on the use of lead ammunition.
The law banning the shooting of ducks and other wildfowl with lead shot is
being widely flouted across England, according to a government-funded study.
Seven in 10 of the ducks checked at game-dealers, butchers and supermarkets
were killed with lead ammunition, while surveys of shooters and shoot
organisers revealed that many admitted they did not always comply with the
regulations introduced in 1999.
The measures were meant to stop the death of waterbirds from lead poisoning
caused by them mistakenly eating spent shot which they mistook for food or
grit needed to aid their digestion. This was thought to account for
one-in-eight bird deaths. But no one is known to have been prosecuted for
breaking the law which could result in a £1,000 fine. The regulations also
ban lead shot being used to kill any birds below the coastal spring-tide
high-water mark or in specified wetlands.
The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), which wrote the report with the help
of surveys by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC),
said there had been no improvement since the trust conducted a smaller study
with the RSPB in 2002. Non-compliance remained "high and widespread".
Businesses selling duck killed by lead pellets are not breaking the law.
The checks indicated how the law was particularly poorly observed on inland
game and duck shoots. Wildfowlers shooting birds in coastal areas were less
likely to supply game outlets, the report noted.
The BASC surveys found up to 45% of those responding admitted not always
complying with the law. Some did not believe lead poisoning of wildlife was
a sufficient problem to justify the regulations and others believed lead
shot was more effective and less expensive than alternative ammunition,
including steel, tungsten and bismuth.
The WWT is calling on the government to do more to ensure the law is obeyed.
It recommends that offences are reported, and said shoot organisers should
make compliance with the law a condition of taking part, and that
game-dealers should demand that all their suppliers had behaved legally.
The BASC agrees all regulations applying to the use of lead shot should be
observed. A spokesman said: "We need to address the problems this is showing
up."
The Lead Ammunition Group, a panel established by environment department
Defra and the Food Standards Agency, is to report on the health impacts of
lead shot on both wildlife and humans next summer.
Mike Tomlinson
<arfa....@ntlworld.com> writes
>There are signs of the ballast
>enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there, have just
>cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging down, in a
>semi-enclosed 'shade'
They don't last as long when run base-up, as you have found.
>, much like a lot of household room and decorative
>lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that has been forced
>on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green issues with a dubious
>foundation in fact.
My thought too. What about the mercury in the tubes?
>I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and swear
>by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first appeared,
>right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...
They have their place, but are not the universal panacea the greenies
profess them to be. They're ok in outside lights, for example, or in
the garage or shed.
>I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of incandescents,
>including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post haste.
Me too. The pound shops and TJ Hughes are still stocking them, 60 and
100w, clear and pearl, for 99p for four.
I snarfed for free a big bag (about 50) of incandescent R60 spot bulbs
from some guy who had replaced the lot in his new house with CFLs.
Excuse me? Try turning them off occasionally...
--
Mike Tomlinson
Meat Plow
<snip everything not worth reading>
Look nothing left. heh
Meat Plow
> blown by goats
Really? How so?
Meat Plow
> TROLL
We know...
Now stick a shotgun in your mouth and.....you know the rest.
David Sanders
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:07:12 -0500, David Sanders wrote:
>
>> Maet Plow is blown by goats
>
> Really? How so?
You tell us.
D Yuniskis
Arfa Daily wrote:
> "D Yuniskis" <not.goi...@seen.com> wrote in message
>> Arfa Daily wrote:
>>> I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
>>> incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
>>
>> <puzzled> Can't you (still) purchase these over-the-counter?
>> I'll admit to not having gone shopping for any recently (as I
>> have several dozen of various bulb types on the shelf) but
>> i didn't realize they have (?) disappeared...
>
> In theory, they have this side of the pond. There was EU legislation put
> in place - that our government of course felt it necessary to sign up to
Ah, OK.
> - which phased out incandescent bulbs with a pearl diffuse envelope. 60
> watters were to be the first to go, followed by 100s. Clear envelopes
> however, were to remain available, at least for the time being. So all
What was the rationale behind phasing out the 60's before the 100's?
Frosted before clear?
> of the supermarkets and sheds stopped selling 60 watt pearl bulbs, ahead
> of the 'ban' to make sure that they complied, and were not left with
> cartloads of unsellable items on their hands. However, as I understand
> it, due to a governmental administrative snafu, the actual legislation
> was never enacted in the UK, leaving the way wide open for internet
> sellers, to just carry on as they were, and take full advantage of
> people's natural tendencies to stock up. I guess that the supermarkets
> etc have not restocked to make sure that a) they don't catch a cold if
> the situation suddenly changes, and b) they don't look bad that they've
> sold out on their eco-bollox credibility ratings.
>
>> (which also makes me wonder if lead solder has gone this route)
>
> No, not really. Standard leaded solder has disappeared from all
> commercially available electronic equipment, with the exception of
> classes of items such as avionics, life support, and military (draw your
> own conclusions on this) which have been granted dispensations to
> continue to manufacture in leaded technology. This has been the case
> since June 2006 when the RoHS directive came into full operation.
> However, there is no requirement for equipment manufactured and brought
> to market before that date, and perfectly legally constructed using non
> RoHS compliant materials, including solder, to be repaired using
> anything other than originally specified non-compliant parts and solder.
Ah, OK.
> Indeed, it is considered to be not particularly metallurgically good to
> mix the two types of technology. There is also no requirement for items
> constructed for your personal use, and not to be offered for resale, to
> be constructed with lead-free parts and solder. For these reasons,
> traditional 60/40 solder is still readily available from all the usual
> parts supply houses, and is expected to continue to be for the
> foreseeable future.
>
>>> haste. I have also just started trying out the halogen versions of
>>> traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the
>>> eco-bollox "book of energy savers", even though they only consume a
>>> few watts less than their equivalent light-output 'traditional'
>>> tungsten cousins. Thus
>>
>> I found the halogens to be a harsh light. Love them outdoors
>> (can you spell "bright as day"?) but I've removed all of the
>> indoor bulbs.
>
> Really ? I have found the light to be perfectly pleasant, if perhaps a
> little bright. Maybe that is your interpretation of "harsh" ?
<shrug> *Felt* as if it was shifted towards the blue (violet) end of
the spectrum.
It is interesting to evaluate "light" in A/B tests instead of
"from memory". You can look at two light sources independantly
(separated by a bit of time) and consider them to be a lot
more similar than when you see them "next to each other" (in
time).
Also matters what other light sources are contaminating the area.
>>> far, I am impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt
>>> equivalent, fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very
>>> bright, very easy (for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour
>>> spectrum, not in the slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the
>>> CFLs, which no matter how much anyone says that *they* can't tell the
>>> difference with, *I* can ... d :-\
>>
>> We're waiting for dimmable LED lamps (that won't require growing
>> extra limbs to purchase)...
>
> Although like CFLs, they do seem to be getting a little better, I've yet
> to see any that come close to other lighting technologies. My local
> supermarket has a number of floodlight fixtures for the car park, split
> between wall and pole mounts. Until a couple of weeks ago, these were
> fitted with some kind of metal halide or maybe high pressure sodium
> bulb. Whatever they were, they were a pale yellow, and did a grand job
> of lighting the car park in all weather conditions. They have now
IIRC, they have special drive requirements. And, suffer from
a slower warm-up time.
We had (some kind of) lamps to illuminate the walkways at school
which could be *shaken* (rather difficult for a 4" metal post
sunk in concrete) "off" -- only to restart some time later.
Mindless game to play when you had nothing more pressing on your
plate. :>
> replaced the fittings with white LED arrays. I would guess that each one
> is probably a 10 x 5 matrix, so 50 LEDs. They are so bright that you
> can't look at them so what power rating are they ? 1 watters ? or 3s
> maybe ? Whatever, still a pretty significant power draw over 50 of them.
> However, bright as they are, the light from them is "harsh" - there's
> that word again - cold and shadowy. They don't actually come close to
> the performance of the previous floodlights, whatever exact technology
> they were. It will be interesting to see how well they penetrate fog, as
> we're now into that season. When low pressure sodiums were first
> introduced for street lighting, as I recall, fog penetration - which
> *is* inescapably good for yellow light - was one of the cited advantages
> for the technology. Certainly where you find white (mercury vapour ? egg
> shaped bulbs) high intensity street lighting in use, it performs nothing
> like as well in fog.
Here, we have ordinances re: "light polution" so fixtures and
bulb technology tend to be driven by things other than cost,
reliability, etc.
<shrug>
D Yuniskis
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> It's always fun to watch the expression on someone's
>> face when they taste *real* "ice cream"!
>
> That is, high-butterfat ice cream with low overrun. The University of
Actually, the fat is just one issue that "surprises" the
innocent's taste buds. More commonly, it is the intensity
of flavor and the "texture" that gets their attention.
Adding eggs to the base has a subtle taste/feel to it
(though makes it dangerous from a health perspective!).
You end up with something between a "Philly-style" cream
and a "Gelato" (custard based). (I've yet to try marrying
the two "technologies")
Flavor intensity can, at first, startle the consumer. But,
I've found that folks quickly get used to the extra "taste"
and invariably want more -- regardless of how much they've
eaten (and been reminded of how *bad* the stuff is for them!).
I, for example, prefer an almond flavored cream with semi-sweet
chocolate chips (sometimes dark chocolate, instead) and almond
slivers. To the uninitiated, it seems like too many tastes
and textures but it grows on you *real* fast! :>
Butter Pecan works for everyone. But, there it really *is*
the high fat content that you taste (1/4 pound of butter in
each quart :> )
> Maryland dairy store sold such ice cream, and it was a wonderful. Even the
Yes, we had a few dairies in my home town that bottled their
own milk (I still recall how heavy those 1G glass bottles
were -- with their "cardboard stopper") and made fresh ice
cream. You never knew what flavor they'd have on hand...
> "premium" brands don't match that quality.
It is amusing because people equate the overrun with "premium taste".
"Softer". Sure, there's less ICE CREAM in there! :>
"Just let it sit out for a few minutes and it will be plenty soft...
AND good tasting!"
whit3rd
wrote:
> You don't really remember who invented global warming do you?
>
> Back in the mid 1980's when the coal miner's strike brought the UK economy
> to its knees (the pound was $1.05), Margaret Thatcher came up with it as a
> way of preventing the miners from ever having a politicial voice again.
>
> The whole idea was to make coal and the miners so "dirty" to the common
> man that the mines would be closed
Not exactly true, though. The uptake of CO2 by oceans and reef-
building
carbonate fixation was a hot science topic for many years. It was
late
eighties that the data got good enough to quantify the problem,
and early nineties when the scientific agreement came together.
Hardly anyone outside the UK knows (or cares, really) about the
Thatcher
contribution.
Remember the old story about the boy who cried "wolf"?
The villagers heard the warning from their watcher in the
field, and did nothing. They lost their child. They lost their
flock.
They had an excuse.
'Maggie Thatcher made me do it' isn't a good enough excuse, either.
Phil Allison
"D Yuniskis"
> What was the rationale behind phasing out the 60's before the 100's?
** The shortage of suitable replacements in CFL for 100 watt bulbs.
IME, it takes a 22 or 27 watt spiral CFL to do the job well.
.... Phil
Arfa Daily
"D Yuniskis" <not.goi...@seen.com> wrote in message
news:ibju97$ahr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Hi Arfa,
<snip>
>
>> - which phased out incandescent bulbs with a pearl diffuse envelope. 60
>> watters were to be the first to go, followed by 100s. Clear envelopes
>> however, were to remain available, at least for the time being. So all
>
> What was the rationale behind phasing out the 60's before the 100's?
> Frosted before clear?
AS far as I have been able to ascertain, the reasoning behind earlier
phase-out of 60s, was that it was felt that CFLs had reached the point where
they could substitute for them in terms of equivalence of light output,
whereas they still had some way to go to be able to make that claim for
100s. As to why pearl before clear, I have not been able to find a
definitive answer to that one. I have seen it suggested that the pearl
envelope is more inefficient than the clear one, in that it blocks more of
the light output of the filament, causing it to be lost as heat. I'm not at
all sure that I believe that as a valid reason, and subjectively, I've
always thought that a pearl bulb in fact *appears* brighter than a clear
one. Certainly, the fact that the light is diffuse, seems to make it less
prone to generating sharp shadows, and from a purely aesthetic point of
view, pearl bulbs look much more attractive in fittings where they are
visible. Clear bulbs always seem to conjour up that 'seedy' feel that you
get from old thirties gangster and private eye movies.
Arfa
Michael A. Terrell
Clear bulbs USED to be 'rugged service' in the US, and made to
withstand shock & vibration better that the frosted bulbs. They were
sold for work lights and hard to replace locations. They are not as
easy to find as they used to be.
D Yuniskis
Arfa Daily wrote:
>> What was the rationale behind phasing out the 60's before the 100's?
>> Frosted before clear?
>
> AS far as I have been able to ascertain, the reasoning behind earlier
> phase-out of 60s, was that it was felt that CFLs had reached the point
> where they could substitute for them in terms of equivalence of light
> output, whereas they still had some way to go to be able to make that
Ah, that makes sense!
> claim for 100s. As to why pearl before clear, I have not been able to
> find a definitive answer to that one. I have seen it suggested that the
> pearl envelope is more inefficient than the clear one, in that it blocks
> more of the light output of the filament, causing it to be lost as heat.
> I'm not at all sure that I believe that as a valid reason, and
> subjectively, I've always thought that a pearl bulb in fact *appears*
It could, perhaps, be related to the fact that clear bulbs tend to
be "exposed" as part of the "artistry" of the light fixture
whereas frosted bulbs are typically behind a shade? I.e., if
the clear ones were replaced early, people would gripe more
about "how ugly" the CFL replacements are (??)
(who the hell knows... maybe they flipped a coin in some back
room?)
> brighter than a clear one. Certainly, the fact that the light is
> diffuse, seems to make it less prone to generating sharp shadows, and
> from a purely aesthetic point of view, pearl bulbs look much more
> attractive in fittings where they are visible. Clear bulbs always seem
> to conjour up that 'seedy' feel that you get from old thirties gangster
> and private eye movies.
Ah, here we see clear bulbs "exposed" in fixtures more than
frosted equivalents (unless you are talking about "*functional*
lighting fixtures")
William Sommerwerck
what's necessary to save energy. Market forces are highly effective in
making short-term changes; they are much less effective in effecting proper
long-term changes. (Things usually get worse until they abruptly collapse.)
The problem, of course, is making sure the forced changes are rational and
occur in the correct order.
What people find aesthetically pleasing varies widely. In Jack Finney's
classic novel "Time and Again" (it's the literary equivalent of a box of
chocolate-covered cherries and I recommend it highly, just for fun), when
Simon Morley returns to the 20th century from the 19th with his girlfriend
Julia Charbonneau, she loves the brightness and clarity of incandescent
lamps, but he says he prefers gas light.
Dave Plowman (News)
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> when Simon Morley returns to the 20th century from the 19th with his
> girlfriend Julia Charbonneau, she loves the brightness and clarity of
> incandescent lamps, but he says he prefers gas light.
Both are pretty continuous spectrum light sources. The problem with both
CFL and LED is they ain't - they have troughs and spikes. Which is what
makes them unpleasant to many, IMHO.
--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jim Yanik
news:ibm6km$o5k$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
> From my view, governments /should/ be forcing (yes, forcing) people to
> do what's necessary to save energy. Market forces are highly effective
> in making short-term changes; they are much less effective in
> effecting proper long-term changes. (Things usually get worse until
> they abruptly collapse.) The problem, of course, is making sure the
> forced changes are rational and occur in the correct order.
if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jamie
Freedom?
Last time I heard, that was coming up short!
William Sommerwerck
news:Xns9E2FC3226D716...@216.168.3.44...
Yeah, our freedom to ruin everything without regard for the consequences.
Think about what would have happened if the US government had, after WW II,
FORCED auto makers to gradually improve fuel mileage at a "reasonable" rate.
The world would almost certainly be quite different.
William Sommerwerck
> stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.
Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we think,
which people we associate with, which books we read, which church we attend,
whom we have sex with, etc.
It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or the
lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this country
is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the
ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic vitality.
Jamie
these days, do you really think we would be in good hands if we gave up
those freedoms?
Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control
over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you
that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up
so bad?
They know the time they have left in office or at least one or
two of them, its a good cover up for they're problems.. Just like
blaming BUSH and all the prior leaders before him .. THat does not sit
right with me. Most of us do not want to hear the past, we want to make
it go away. Using the past as an excuse for not getting equality for
man kind sounds more like Bible thumping.. And you should know that
politics and religion do not mix!
Nothing gets done with bible thumpers other than pointing the finger
at the other guy for all their problems. They seem to thieve on it. And
with out elaborating on that, I'm sure you know what I am referring too.
Come on now, do you want to be the first to give up your freedoms to
our leaders? Especially those that are in power at the moment?
I will admit that something's we do have, made it a little easier than
it should be to gain access to funds that are diverted where they
should not be. Who is the blame for that? our freedoms? I don't think
so.
Remember, its not just a little, it's all or nothing! I don't
really think you are prepare to just turn over and die!
If we didn't have any FREEDOM thumpers. You'd be in a world of shit
and long time ago...
The first thing that needs to be done is to remove those off the
program that don't belong on it, especially those that are not even
legal to start with! You talk about FREEDOMS, its those people that are
doing the most damage by threatening our FREEDOMS. Because they
are using up all the resources our country created for those that are
legally born here and worked for it.. If you do the math, one of our
greatest problems is those on the system illegally..
Next on the list is to get the peoples hands out of each others
pockets. That includes all the entitlements and pay outs from
big business.. This all comes to a bottleneck at some point and the
bottle has broken!
No, Its not our FREEDOMS that are the problems, its those governing
them and don't want us to have them because they don't know how to
manage it and keep their nose out of area's where they don't belong with
out them or their buddies getting a cut some where.. Most of those guys
are there for the wrong reasons, not the reasons we put them there for.
And don't forget that.
William Sommerwerck
>> which people we associate with, which books we read, which church
>> we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.
>> It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive or
the
>> lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of this
country
>> is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!"
>> are >> the ones doing the most to destroy this country's economic
vitality.
> Think about it, you are sounding like those that want 100% control
> over you and you're willing to give it.. Has it ever occurred to you
> that our leadership is using that as an excuse for them screwing up
> so bad?
Uh... you obviously didn't read what I wrote.
Arfa Daily
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5175c30...@davenoise.co.uk...
Seconded. Nail on head and all that. As I have said before, they are a
substitute not a replacement technology, at this point in their development.
Arfa
Arfa Daily
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ibnge2$rve$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
But it is not of "less than zero importance". We are talking of a principle
here, and you can't have a principle that's valid for one set of ideas, and
not for a different set that don't suit your particular views. A principle
must be valid right across the board, otherwise, it's not one ...
You can disagree with some aspects of the way a principle is applied to
life, but you can't invalidate it for those conditions, just because of that
disagreement.
Arfa
Jim Yanik
are you familiar with CAFE? Corporate Average Fuel Economy law,that
manadates higher MPG for passenger vehicles?
the one that was responsible for more people buying TRUCKS AND SUVs with
far worse fuel economy,and for clogging our roads with even bigger
landbarges.
That was government's way of forcing better mileage. It didn't work very
well.
Jim Yanik
I disagee.
the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,and private
autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and prosperity.
And government is not the best for determining what is best for
people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.
FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of lamps we must
use,or how efficient our autos must be.
there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.
to repeat;
if you want to force people to do what you think is best for them,then move
somewhere else. Please.We dont need any communists here.
Jim Yanik
you wrote a bunch of nonsense.
William Sommerwerck
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:ibnge2$rve$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort of
>>> stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our freedom.
>> Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
>> think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
>> church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.
>> It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
>> or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability of
>> this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
>> FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
>> country's economic vitality.
> I disagee.
> the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,
> and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
> They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and prosperity.
WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE OUTLAWED?
WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.
Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your conservative
Weltanschauung?
The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that Americans have
traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to FORCE people to buy
smaller cars.
> And government is not the best for determining what is best
> for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.
I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so that
people won't be forced to purchase products that might be dangerous to their
health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety Commission. After all, the
best way to find out if your child might strangle itself in a crib is to
give the child a chance and see what happens.
One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But of
course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a
/terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?
> FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of
> lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be.
> there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.
FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the Federal
government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is typical.
Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution or Bill of
Rights /actually/ say.)
You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books that
controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy, how many
pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase. This was
necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and supplies they
needed. DO YOU OBJECT?
We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of our
energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of WW II.
What would you have us do about this? Wait until energy becomes so expensive
that people are forced to use less -- and American industry is further
damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to use less NOW?
When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy your
precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.
-----------------------
Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use
more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or the
bulbs themselves.
It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government to
prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based tungsten
lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for them /right
now/.
However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps
(especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in a
refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on only
briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in replacing
such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't consume anywhere
nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>are you familiar with CAFE? Corporate Average Fuel Economy law,that
>manadates higher MPG for passenger vehicles?
>
>the one that was responsible for more people buying TRUCKS AND SUVs with
>far worse fuel economy,and for clogging our roads with even bigger
>landbarges.
>
>That was government's way of forcing better mileage. It didn't work very
>well.
CAFE is a problem, but that wasn't the original reason for consumers
to buy over SUV/truck monsters. It was the "gas guzzler tax" of 1978.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_guzzler_tax>
<http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/>
<http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm>
The buyer of a new vehicle pays $1,000 to $7,700 in taxes to the feds
if it doesn't get at least 22 mpg. However, if the vehicle is over
6000 lbs GVW, it's exempt as a light truck and no taxes are charged.
For a 6000 lb GVW behemoth SUV, that should pay the $7,700 tax, at
$3/gallon, that's 2000 gallons of gas. With a 12 mpg typical gas
mileage for a big SUV, that's 72,000 miles. The average driver burns
12,000 to 20,000 miles per year. Not paying this tax would therefore
pay for all the gasoline consumed in the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of
operation. Since this tax generates considerable revenue, the feds
wouldn't even think of fixing the counter incentive problem.
It's quite a sales pitch:
Buy this new oversized gas guzzler, and the money you save
will pay for the first 3.5 to 7.0 years of driving.
What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jim Yanik
> "Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns9E305ADB72408...@216.168.3.44...
>> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:ibnge2$rve$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>>> if that's what you want,then MOVE to somewhere that does that sort
>>>> of stuff. don't try to enact it here in the US. We value our
>>>> freedom.
>
>>> Freedom is important -- critical, vital -- with respect to what we
>>> think, which people we associate with, which books we read, which
>>> church we attend, whom we have sex with, etc.
>
>>> It is of less than zero importance with respect to the cars we drive
>>> or the lamps we illuminate our houses with. The economic stability
>>> of this country is far more important. Those who scream "FREEDOM!
>>> FREEDOM! FREEDOM!" are the ones doing the most to destroy this
>>> country's economic vitality.
>
>> I disagee.
>> the ability to move freely about our nation is very important,
>> and private autos are one of the big successes of our nation.
>> They are very vital to our economic stability,vitality,and
>> prosperity.
>
> WHERE DID I EVER SAY PRIVATE CARS ARE A BAD THING, OR SHOULD BE
> OUTLAWED? WHERE, WHERE, WHERE? SHOW ME.
show me where I said that you said any of that.
>
> Do you deliberately distort EVERYTHING YOU READ to fit your
> conservative Weltanschauung?
why do you ASSume things that have not been said?
>
> The CAFE largely flopped, because it overlooked the fact that
> Americans have traditionally loved big cars, and CAFE did nothing to
> FORCE people to buy smaller cars.
>
>
>> And government is not the best for determining what is best
>> for people.Their track record in that respect is atrocious.
>
> I know, I know... Let's get rid of the Food & Drug administration, so
> that people won't be forced to purchase products that might be
> dangerous to their health. And let's get rid of the Federal Safety
> Commission. After all, the best way to find out if your child might
> strangle itself in a crib is to give the child a chance and see what
> happens.
that Safety Commission is one more thing(of many) Federal government should
NOT be involved with. If people want those services,companies will spring
up to provide them,like Consumer Reports.
>
> One of the purposes of government IS to regulate human behavior. But
> of course, sending someone to prison when they commit murder is such a
> /terrible/ restraint on personal freedom, is it not?
>
>
>> FYI,government has NO BUSINESS determining what sort of
>> lamps we must use,or how efficient our autos must be.
>> there's no power for that given to them in our Constitution.
>
> FYI, there is. It's the Interstate Commerce clause, which gives the
> Federal government pretty much carte blanche in such matters. (This is
> typical. Conservatives generally have no idea of what the Constitution
> or Bill of Rights /actually/ say.)
Bullshit.
regulating TRADE between the states has nothing to do with auto fuel
economy. that Interstate Commerce clause has been abused almost as much as
the "provide for the general welfare" comment on the Preamble.
>
> You know, during WW II there was rationing. People got coupon books
> that controlled how much of particular types of food they could buy,
> how many pairs of shoes and sets of auto tires they could purchase.
> This was necessary to make sure our soldiers had the weapons and
> supplies they needed. DO YOU OBJECT?
There was a WAR being fought. there's provision for that,it makes
sense,and it was for a limited time.
>
> We are at war with countries who control a substantial percentage of
> our energy supply, and have been involved in this war since the end of
> WW II. What would you have us do about this?
DEVELOP OUR OWN ENERGY SOURCES. Instead of blocking them off.
> Wait until energy becomes
> so expensive that people are forced to use less -- and American
> industry is further damaged by high energy costs -- or FORCE people to
> use less NOW?
>
> When this country is reduced to third-world economic status, enjoy
> your precious "freedom" to choose the light bulb you want.
Our nation is being "reduced to third-world status" by people like you,who
have government interfere in everything. Our status began dropping when we
began accepting socialism.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Just to clarify a point... The government should force people to use
> more-efficient lighting, whether or not they like it -- the forcing or
> the bulbs themselves.
I disagree. the Federal government has NO BUSINESS in this area.
>
> It would be easy enough -- and an excellent idea -- for the government
> to prohibit the manufacture & import of conventional Edison-based
> tungsten lamps after, say, 2015. There are good CFL replacements for
> them /right now/.
>
> However... there are no satisfactory replacements for decorative lamps
> (especially the smaller ones), nor would it make sense to use a CFL in
> a refrigerator (or in any application where the light is turned on
> only briefly). Except for chandeliers, there might be little point in
> replacing such lamps with more-efficient versions, as they don't
> consume anywhere nearly as much electricity as general lighting does.
Yeah,force people to change instead of building more nuclear power plants
and having cheap reliable electricity.
You need to move to commie-land.
Then you can force people to do as you want them to do.
LSMFT
> Remember my post a few weeks back "Another Reason to Hate CFLs" ? Well,
> here's yet another. That one that I put in my bench light, that started
> it all, has now become so dim, that it is worse than useless. It has
> been getting worse and worse over the last week. There are signs of the
> ballast enclosure running hot, so I guess that any electros in there,
> have just cooked dry, due to the fact that it is predominantly hanging
> down, in a semi-enclosed 'shade', much like a lot of household room and
> decorative lighting does. They are fundamentally a crap technology that
> has been forced on a largely unwanting public, by supposedly green
> issues with a dubious foundation in fact.
>
> I know a lot of people on here seem to like the dreadful things, and
> swear by them, but my continuing experience, judged from when they first
> appeared, right up until now, just makes me want to swear *at* them ...
>
> I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of
> incandescents, including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post
> traditional light bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox
> "book of energy savers", even though they only consume a few watts less
> than their equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus
> fitted to my hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy
> (for me anyway) to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the
> slightest way offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how
> much anyone says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ...
> d :-\
>
One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short
warm up cycle others have longer ones.
I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?
--
LSMFT
Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.
Michael A. Terrell
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
> vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
> considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
> but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
> order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
> passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
> aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
> the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.
My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
would have went up at 6200 pounds.
Michael A. Terrell
LSMFT wrote:
>
> One bad bulb condemns the entire line. Good thinking.
> I use them everywhere and they work great. There are different brands,
> some made in the US, some in China or other places. Some have a short
> warm up cycle others have longer ones.
> I will never go back to incandescent heater bulbs.
> If anything I will move onto to LEDs. Do you have stone wheels on your car?
Have you ever seen stone wheels on a car, and cartoons don't count?
Do you ever think before posting stupid, meaninless analogies?
Jeff Liebermann
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> What I usually find on the sticker is a 6004 lb GVW. Yet, when the
>> vehicle is actually weighed empty (curb weight), it usually measures
>> considerably less. I have no idea how the GVW is actually calculated,
>> but I suspect there's a bit of creative number juggling happening in
>> order to get the weight up to over 6000 lbs. GVW includes payload,
>> passengers, and all options. They probably crammed a half dozen
>> aspiring Sumo wrestlers into the vehicle as passengers, while filling
>> the trunk with lead bricks until the springs almost flattened.
> My '73 Chevy Step Van weighed 6150, with five gallons of gasoline,
>and me out of the truck. The commercial tag was based on weight, and
>would have went up at 6200 pounds.
I wasn't referring to real commercial vehicles. My comments are in
reference to what would normally be considered a large passenger car
(such as an SUV or crew/family pickup), that has been "fattened" to
exceed 6000 lbs to avoid paying the gas guzzler tax.
My long gone 1972 Internationl 3/4 ton 1210 pickup, with service
boxes, had a GVW on the stick of 6300 lbs. However, when I weighed it
empty for the weight sticker at the dump, with 24 gallons of gas, and
all the tools and junk I could hide inside the boxes, they gave me a
sticker for 6200 lbs. If I had been in the drivers seat, it would
have hit 6300 lbs.
A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth
is at:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Tax_benefits_in_the_United_States>
Michael A. Terrell
The StepVan was my service truck. it had a 292 inline six, and got
more that 22 miles per gallon with a couple tons of cargo.
> A short discussion of the tax benefits of buying a Hummer H2 behmoth
> is at:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummer_H2#Tax_benefits_in_the_United_States>
The down side is it makes you look like an impotent fool when you
drive one. 'Viagra on wheels!' :)
Arfa Daily
"LSMFT" <bol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:znVDo.15923$Ou2....@newsfe20.iad...
And where did I ever say "one bad bulb" ? I actually said, if you took the
trouble to read the post properly, " - but my continuing experience, judged
from when they first
appeared, right up until now - "
Does that perhaps suggest to you that I have been trying different types
from all manner of manufacturers in all sorts of countries, for the last 15
years or more ? Yes, some do have a 'short warm up period' but that is still
massively long compared to an incandescent, which reaches its maximum light
output in a few mS - for all intents and purposes, instantly. There are some
places where CFLs have their uses, but for me, not many of them are inside
the house. If you like them, and want to fill your house with them, that's
fine. I however, don't.
But more than anything, I object to self-obsessed greenie politicians,
trying to force me to use them, based largely on a misconceived notion that
the things are 'eco-friendly'. If countries embraced nuclear power
generation in the way that France for instance, has, then there would not be
any need to mandate this nonsense, nor to cover the countryside and
coastline with stupid ugly and noisy windmills, and now to carpet the rest
of the countryside, in ridiculously inefficient photovoltaic panels ...
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
> windmills,
Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE of
Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race meeting.
Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could sometimes just
hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated part of the country.
Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of aircraft, etc.
--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.
Baron
> In article <ql0Eo.77512$9k3....@newsfe24.ams2>,
> Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> nor to cover the countryside and coastline with stupid ugly and noisy
>> windmills,
>
> Strangely, I slept in a caravan in the middle of a wind farm in the NE
> of Scotland just a few weeks ago. Was attending a classic car race
> meeting. Those weren't noisy. Depending on wind direction you could
> sometimes just hear a 'swish swish'. But this was in a very isolated
> part of the country. Most parts of the UK have the distant sound of
> aircraft, etc.
I agree with Dave ! I too have done the same, slept in a camper van in
the middle of a wind farm ! No real noise at all.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Arfa Daily
"Baron" <baron....@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of power
that they generate. And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind,
they don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what
man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...
On what Dave says about the distant sound of aircraft etc, it's strange how
that noise is missed when it's not there. When I was a kid, my mother had
ticking clocks all over the house. You never noticed them when they were
running, but if one had stopped, you could hear that it had, as soon as you
walked through the front door.
Likewise, did you notice it when the volcano grounded all the air traffic ?
It was preternaturally quiet outside ( I live in the countryside, so it's
quite quiet anyway). Even the birds and other animals seemed unnaturally
quiet, so presumably, they could hear that there was nothing to hear as
well, and they didn't like it. When we had that earthquake a couple of years
back in the early hours, I was sitting here at the computer, and some
minutes before it rumbled through under the house, the cows in the field
behind the house, as well as owls and foxes, went bananas, so I guess they
must have been able to sense it coming.
Arfa
Brenda Ann
"Baron" <baron....@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ibsa0q$igv$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
I've been to wind farms myself. The only noise is sort of a muted
'whoosh-whoosh', and that with a standard 3 blade unit. There are spiracle
types made to make even less noise.
I think people that don't want alternative energy are equating windmills
with giant fans, which make much more noise because they are moving air, and
not air moving them.. BIG difference!
Michael A. Terrell
Have you seen any of the videos of them failing in high winds and
exploding?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
Arfa Daily
"Brenda Ann" <newsg...@fullspectrumradio.org> wrote in message
news:IdGdnYGbZscmeXzR...@giganews.com...
I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a country
below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available. Even then, you
have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the power that you
generate, to anywhere that it's needed. In the UK, and most of Europe, there
just isn't enough year round sun of any intensity, to make the projects
feasible, which is why other countries in the EU have tried it, and rejected
it. But of course, the dumb old UK have got to give it a go themselves,
rather than learn from others' mistakes ...
Likewise, what use are thousands of windmills that don't generate for at
least 50% of the time, due to the winds being either too low in speed or,
staggeringly, too high ! I haven't looked much into the practicalities of
the tidal windmills that are now being installed, but it strikes me that the
maintenance costs of these are likely to be rather high, and the lifetime in
corrosive salt water, comparatively short.
We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean and
practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people have such a
problem with it. The French don't. When we are all sitting shivering in our
houses because some eastern bloc altercation has cut off our gas supplies,
and waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to blow, the French will be
chortling away, offering to sell us even more of their nuclear power than
they do now, at even more inflated prices. I appreciate that there are
potential issues with recycling waste nuclear material, but I am sure that
these are not insurmountable.
And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all about
responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst such
scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of the original
concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the public these
technologies by way of the hysterical global warming issue (trends now
indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we were being told back in
the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if any foundation in fact, is
making huge amounts of money for companies who are having their products
built by the biggest industrial polluters in the world, and don't actually
give a toss about green issues ...
Arfa
Dave Plowman (News)
Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they don't
> cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what man
> does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...
Well, wind power was one of the earliest forms of energy man used for
moving things - sailing ships, windmills, etc. Well before steam was
harnessed.
Perhaps solar power saps the sun's rays too? ;-)
--
*Great groups from little icons grow *
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are against
> 'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
> combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
> forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a country
> below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.
The tax situation also matters. I have a friend who lives near Philadelphia,
who put an array up on his single family house. He is nowhere near a desert.
His nominal income tax rate is around 33%. He bought a $30,000 dollar
array and was able to take it off of his income tax, so that reduced the
price to $20k.
He was able to get another $10k off in state tax credits and grants.
Because of the "cap and trade" law, his power company is paying him for the
right to claim that his array provides power to "the grid" as if they were
doing it, which nets him $2,500 a year. They also pay him per killowat hour
he does put onto the grid.
It's not 100% free electricty as it has no storage capability, so it becomes
cloudy, or during the night, he has to buy electrcity. For saftey reasons,
it shuts down if the main electricity goes out.
The array has a long term warranty and is insured as part of his homeowner's
policy. So basicly, he has invested $10k for a $30k array, and after 4 years,
anything he gets from it in cap and trade fees, reduced electrical bills,
and additional value on his house is free.
Around 2000, a co-worker who lived in the UK (same company, different offices),
was looking at using special heating cells designed to heat GPS satellites
from "earthshine". His estimate that for 3000 UKP total investment, he
would save 450 UKP a year in gas.
I'm not sure where he lived, it was withing motorcycle commuting distance
of "The City".
I lost touch in 2002, I wonder if it worked? I expect that UK heating gas
bills have gone up in 10 years.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)
baron
Yes I agree. It annoys me that that the objectors try to use noise
pollution from wind farms as a method of garnering support. I won't
deny that the visual aspect is intrusive.
We have a group locally, only four or five people that want to ban wind
farms. They are using the arguments above as a method of trying to
bully the local residents into agreeing with them. The laughable thing
is the wind farm in question is going to be built more than ten miles
from the village. In addition its a fairly wooded area, so people
aren't going to be able to see them anyway !
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
baron
Hi Arfa,
> I don't think that there are many people who are sane, that are
> against 'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs
> to be combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to
> get forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got
> a country below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available.
> Even then, you have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the
> power that you generate, to anywhere that it's needed. In the UK, and
> most of Europe, there just isn't enough year round sun of any
> intensity, to make the projects feasible, which is why other countries
> in the EU have tried it, and rejected it. But of course, the dumb old
> UK have got to give it a go themselves, rather than learn from others'
> mistakes ...
Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !
> Likewise, what use are thousands of windmills that don't generate for
> at least 50% of the time, due to the winds being either too low in
> speed or, staggeringly, too high ! I haven't looked much into the
> practicalities of the tidal windmills that are now being installed,
> but it strikes me that the maintenance costs of these are likely to be
> rather high, and the lifetime in corrosive salt water, comparatively
> short.
Yes maintenance costs bother me too. I wonder how long it will be
before we start scrapping systems because of those costs.
> We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean
> and practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people
> have such a problem with it. The French don't.
I agree the French have embraced the Nuclear nettle and have taken huge
steps to protect the plants from attack by terrorists and the like.
I've seen first hand the twenty foot, triple razor wire, barrier fences
and the deep ditches between them. All the cameras and IR lighting
used to monitor the area. Not small areas either ! The one that I
visited was a 20Km drive just to get around it. They are not very
visible either, having lots of trees and such planted around reduces
its visual impact. Unlike a UK power station, you could drive right
past a French one and not even know it was there.
> When we are all sitting
> shivering in our houses because some eastern bloc altercation has cut
> off our gas supplies, and waiting for the sun to shine and the wind to
> blow, the French will be chortling away, offering to sell us even more
> of their nuclear power than they do now, at even more inflated prices.
> I appreciate that there are potential issues with recycling waste
> nuclear material, but I am sure that these are not insurmountable.
Hasn't the Uk government just got into bed with EDF on the basis that
the French will share there Nuclear technologies, or they hope they
will. Either way EDF will maximise the extraction of profits from the
UK populace to pay for it !
> And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all
> about responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst
> such scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of
> the original concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the
> public these technologies by way of the hysterical global warming
> issue (trends now indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we
> were being told back in the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if
> any foundation in fact, is making huge amounts of money for companies
> who are having their products built by the biggest industrial
> polluters in the world, and don't actually give a toss about green
> issues ...
>
> Arfa
Agreed ! The feudal system is alive and well... The serfs will pay !
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
William Sommerwerck
> blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
> and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of
power
> that they generate.
Do you have evidence for that, one way or the other?
> And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they
> don't cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what
> man does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...
The same thought has crossed my mind, too. But they're unlikely to have a
significant effect, for roughly the same reason that humans are unable to
deliberately modify the weather -- it takes too much energy.
Nuclear reactors don't bother me, much. Nuclear waste does. Do you know what
a pebble bed reactor is? It appears to have the potentional to end all the
problems with nuclear energy, but nobody's doing much about it.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !
That was so last decade. Now with the "austerity programme" (did I spell
that correctly?), 20% VAT, and multiculturism, you will be just trying
not to get blown up nor starve, to keep the lights on and not
freeze this winter. :-(
You might as well get out those old books on how to make do with food
rations. I don't have them, but read a set someone lent me of reprints
from the Imperial War Museum.
The only problem with them, is that around 1943, supplies of powdered milk
and eggs, and canned pork (SPAM) started to arrive from the US and Canada.
I don't think there will be much to spare this time around. People on food
mailing lists from the US are complaining about the high prices of food, and
the lack of the usual holiday (it's Thanksgiving in the US soon) sales. :-(
William Sommerwerck
> 'alternative' energy, per se. The trick is that the word needs to be
> combined with that other little word "practical". That seems to get
> forgotten in all this. PV panels are all very well, if you've got a
country
> below say 45 deg N, with a lot of unused desert available. Even then, you
> have the logistics and losses involved in shifting the power that you
> generate, to anywhere that it's needed.
This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway. We have a big connected
grid.
People keep saying that solar energy doesn't work at night. Correct. But we
need less energy at nigh. The idea is to have a mix of energy sources.
> We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean and
> practical, and that is nuclear.
You talk about "practical", but what is the "practical" way to get rid of
the waste?
> I appreciate that there are potential issues with recycling waste
> nuclear material, but I am sure that these are not insurmountable.
It isn't just what's left over from the fuel rods. It's also the stuff that
the radiation contaminaes.
> And don't make the mistake of thinking that 'alternative power' is all
> about responsible people trying to save the planet. It's not. Whilst such
> scientists and eco-minded people may have been at the centre of the
> original concepts, it is now all about big business. Selling the public
these
> technologies by way of the hysterical global warming issue (trends now
> indicate a cooling again BTW, much the same as we were being told back
> in the 70s) and pseudo science that has little if any foundation in fact,
is
> making huge amounts of money for companies who are having their products
> built by the biggest industrial polluters in the world, and don't actually
> give a toss about green issues ...
I thought you had more sense. Where do you get this business about "cooling
trends"?
Regardless, global warming ultimately has nothing to do with it. We need
safe, renewable sources of energy. We can't keep burning fossil fuels
indefinitely. THAT problem should be driving us to develop them as quickly
as possible. We should have been working on it aggressively after WW II.
But, no. "The Market" will automatically solve all our problems.
It appears that work on extracting oil from algae (which appear to be the
source of natural oil deposits) has been going on for more than 30 years,
mostly at oil companies. Why do you think we haven't seen any progress?
There are some things that are too important to be left to the people who
profit from them.
N_Cook
news:slrnie4q8...@cable.mendelson.com...
There is a potential ;-) problem in Germany with so many uncontrolled small
scale PV rooftops if there is a very sunny day coinciding with minimal grid
load.
I wonder if it will be in my lifetime there will be the pan-Europe grid
(probably very high voltage DC strangely) connecting Iceland geothermal /
Norway hydro/ French nuclear / N Africa solar together
Dave Plowman (News)
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are some things that are too important to be left to the people who
> profit from them.
Prime example in the UK.
Thatcher close the coal mines to punish the miners. Only possible because
we had just got North Sea gas on stream. Now, some 20 years later it is
getting exhausted and we have to import gas at vast cost.
Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?
--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *
William Sommerwerck
overpopulation.
When I was a kid, the world's population reached 2Gcbl, and people were
afraid of starvation, disease, etc. It's now 6Gcbl, and still growing,
partly due to the "green revolution".
You don't need to be Malthus to understand that the Earth doesn't have
infinite carrying capacity. If things don't change, at some point the system
/has/ to collapse.
Somewhere between now and then we will see drastic changes, with governments
controlling the size of the homes we build (probably outlawing single-family
dwellings), how many children we can have, how many calories a day we can
consume, and so forth. (See "Soylent Green". I haven't read Harry Harrison's
"Make Room, Make Room", but the idea of recycling human protein is /not/ in
it.)
You get violently angry when I insist that government force people to do
what's right about trivial things -- such as how you light their homes. Wait
until you see what happens to your /basic/, "inalienable" rights when there
isn't enough land to produce food or house people. And you think Communist
societies are bad...
There are simply too many people. Imagine what things would be like if there
were only 500Mcbl. (By the way, I'm in favor of across-the-board population
reduction. The people in developed countries consume too much of everything,
and there are simply too many people in poor countries.)
The problem of overpopulation is largely due to developed countries
spreading death control, without forcing the people who receive it to
practice birth control. (And I'm not talking about abortion.) If the
potential recipients of death control say "Our religion (or social beliefs,
etc) prohibits birth control," they will hear "Our understanding of biology
prohibits helping people who don't understand what happens when you disrupt
the natural order of things." Which is what death control is -- a disruption
of the natural order, in which disease and lack of food keep populations
from growing rapidly.
If you don't understand this, think of human beings as deer, and disease,
lack of clean water, malnutrition, etc, as wolves. What happens when you
start systematically killing off the wolves?
William Sommerwerck
>> left to the people who profit from them.
> Prime example in the UK.
> Thatcher close the coal mines to punish the miners. Only possible
> because we had just got North Sea gas on stream. Now, some 20
> years later it is getting exhausted and we have to import gas at vast
> cost.
> Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
> election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?
Unfortunately, both Liberals and Conservatives pass laws based on what they
believe is morally or philosophically correct, without /any/ regard for the
consequences.
There might be unintended consequences, but hardly any of them are
unpredictable.
Dave Plowman (News)
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nice to find a politician who can see beyond the next
> > election? And actually have the good of the majority in mind?
> Unfortunately, both Liberals and Conservatives pass laws based on what
> they believe is morally or philosophically correct, without /any/ regard
> for the consequences.
If only that were true. At least it would be honest.
> There might be unintended consequences, but hardly any of them are
> unpredictable.
Absolutely. There were plenty of predictions about the amount of gas in
'our' part of the North Sea and indeed there is actually more. But it has
been squandered producing 'cheap' electricity. When that can be made from
other means. But other means ain't so good as gas for heating and industry.
--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *
Arfa Daily
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:517706f...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <owlEo.118903$zz4....@newsfe04.ams2>,
> Arfa Daily <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> And actually, who's to say that by 'stealing' the wind, they don't
>> cause some 'butterfly effect' elsewhere ? :-) Little of what man
>> does actually has a zero effect on his environment ...
>
>
> Well, wind power was one of the earliest forms of energy man used for
> moving things - sailing ships, windmills, etc. Well before steam was
> harnessed.
>
> Perhaps solar power saps the sun's rays too? ;-)
>
> --
>
> Dave Plowman
I'm sure it does Dave, I'm sure it does ... :-)
Arfa
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> This is not a problem -- not in the US, anyway. We have a big connected
> grid.
Look it up. It's about 33% efficent, i.e. 1/3 of the electricity put into
the grid comes out. Still with solar and other passive power that's
mostly an up-front cost, you just need to replace fossil fuel buring plants
with an equivalent output passive system.
Arfa Daily
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ibttii$isa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Perhaps it depends on the distance from them, or maybe the design of the
>> blades. Either way, noisy or not, they are still a blot on the landscape,
>> and IMHO, a huge waste of resources for the relatively small amount of
> power
>> that they generate.
>
> Do you have evidence for that, one way or the other?
Well, you could try having a read of this one. I know it's a 'popular press'
article and there will of course be people who immediately scream that the
press are all liars, but I think that the basic figures quoted, and some of
the reasons that that are stated for the evangelical take up of this
technology, are probably thereabouts on the money, as I have read similar
ones elsewhere
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7823681/Does-money-grow-in-wind-farms.html
Arfa
William Sommerwerck
>> We have a big connected grid.
> Look it up. It's about 33% efficent, ie, 1/3 of the electricity
> put into the grid comes out.
I'd like to see the numbers on that. That's a huge loss.
William Sommerwerck
press'
> article and there will of course be people who immediately scream that the
> press are all liars, but I think that the basic figures quoted, and some
of
> the reasons that that are stated for the evangelical take up of this
> technology, are probably thereabouts on the money, as I have read similar
> ones elsewhere
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/7823681/Does-money-grow-in-wind-farms.html
The article doesn't seem stupid or self-serving, but it misses the
fundamental issue -- how much does wind energy actually /cost/, over the
lifetime of the generator? This seems to me much more important than how
efficient the devices are.
Arfa Daily
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnie4q8...@cable.mendelson.com...
You better believe that they've gone up ! Massively so, because we now seem
to buy all of our gas from energy companies in France, who charge us what
they like. They are, in turn, buying it from the Russians.
All of what you say about your friend in America, duly noted. However, all
it says is that the panels that he put up, were basically all about winning
grants, tax breaks, and subsidies, rather than about the green issue, and
this seems to be the case for most of these alternative technologies. There
was a big debate about all of this 'PV panels on the roof' stuff recently on
another group, and some very well informed people on there did a good job of
taking the figures apart. The bottom line seemed to be that this four year
figure is the one that's always quoted, but due to such things as the
efficiency of the panels dropping for various electrical and physical
reasons, it is almost impossible to achieve the figures that the companies
would try to have you believe. We are now getting a leaflet a week dropping
through the door, trying to convince us to invest in this. Seems that many
of the companies springing up to carry out this work, are basically
untrained, and there is no requirement for them to be. There have apparently
already been cases of panels being installed on roofs that are not strong
enough to carry them ...
Arfa
Arfa Daily
<snip>
>> We already have an 'alternative' power technology that is both clean
>> and practical, and that is nuclear. I really don't know why people
>> have such a problem with it. The French don't.
>
> I agree the French have embraced the Nuclear nettle and have taken huge
> steps to protect the plants from attack by terrorists and the like.
> I've seen first hand the twenty foot, triple razor wire, barrier fences
> and the deep ditches between them. All the cameras and IR lighting
> used to monitor the area. Not small areas either !
I would put them offshore, and protect them with a military presence and gun
batteries. After all, we had the technology to build forts out at sea in
Victorian times, so I'm sure we could do it again for nuclear power plants.
Use the water for direct cooling, as well ...
Arfa
<snip>
> Baron.
Michael A. Terrell
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
>
> baron wrote:
> > Ahh, but we are supposed to be the technological leaders... aren't we !
>
> That was so last decade. Now with the "austerity programme" (did I spell
> that correctly?), 20% VAT, and multiculturism, you will be just trying
> not to get blown up nor starve, to keep the lights on and not
> freeze this winter. :-(
>
> You might as well get out those old books on how to make do with food
> rations. I don't have them, but read a set someone lent me of reprints
> from the Imperial War Museum.
>
> The only problem with them, is that around 1943, supplies of powdered milk
> and eggs, and canned pork (SPAM) started to arrive from the US and Canada.
> I don't think there will be much to spare this time around. People on food
> mailing lists from the US are complaining about the high prices of food, and
> the lack of the usual holiday (it's Thanksgiving in the US soon) sales. :-(
Food prices go up and down, depending on fuel costs. We have idiots
that want to more than double the current prices. That will more than
triple food prices, and cost a lot of jobs.
I saw 'bone in' uncooked hams for $1.19 a pound yesterday at a
Save-A-Lot store. A family of four caould have a nice Thanksgiving meal
for $20 to $30 and have plenty of leftovers for snacks. The problem
with a lot of people is that they won't look for good prices, or drive
an extra couple miles to save money on food. I shop at six different
supermarkets and at Sam's Club. I don't make a special trip to them
when I can avoid it. I stop in when I have other business in that
area. They are all concentrated in two areas, so I can shop more than
one in a single trip. I am diabetic, and have trouble finding what I
want, and can eat so I can'tt shop in one place.
Most people I know pick one store and buy everthing there, regardless
of prices.
William Sommerwerck
> Save-A-Lot store. A family of four caould have a nice Thanksgiving
> meal for $20 to $30 and have plenty of leftovers for snacks. The problem
> with a lot of people is that they won't look for good prices, or drive
> an extra couple miles to save money on food. I shop at six different
> supermarkets and at Sam's Club. I don't make a special trip to them
> when I can avoid it. I stop in when I have other business in that
> area. They are all concentrated in two areas, so I can shop more than
> one in a single trip. I am diabetic, and have trouble finding what I
The difference in prices among stores -- for exactly the same product -- can
be startling. In the Seattle area, Fred Meyer tends to have the lowest
prices among the major chains, but (of course) Costco can be (and often is)
even lower -- though you don't have the selection, of course.
I occasionally stop by the Oroweat "day-old" store and pay /half/ what I do
at Costco. I rarely pay more than $1.20 for a loaf of rye bread, or $1 for a
box of English muffins -- often less.
I remember some TV show where people were showing how they shopped. One
woman put more than $100 of food in her cart -- then said she didn't have
anything for that night's meal.
> Most people I know pick one store and buy everything there,
> regardless of prices.
Most people have /no idea whatever/ how to make intelligent purchases.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Most people have /no idea whatever/ how to make intelligent purchases.
Your whole argument is based upon the ability to travel to different stores
and buy different but similar things.
For example, you mentioned buying day old bread. It's similar to fresh bread,
but not the same. Or that brand X meat is the same as brand Y and so on.
If gas is cheap and you have plenty of time you can do it, but if you are
busy, don't have a car, or can't afford the gasoline, you are stuck.
William Sommerwerck
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Most people have /no idea whatever/ how to make
>> intelligent purchases.
> Your whole argument is based upon the ability to travel
>> to different stores and buy different but similar things.
Yes, of course. Where I live, this is absolutely trivial.
> For example, you mentioned buying day old bread.
> It's similar to fresh bread, but not the same.
Actually, it's identical. Most of the items in Oroweat (and similar) stores
have been pulled shortly before their expiration date -- which is itself
conservative. It's not stale or moldy. No one could tell the difference.
> Or that brand X meat is the same as brand Y and so on.
I didn't say that! I said identical items, and I meant it. You wouldn't
believe some of the price differences.
> If gas is cheap and you have plenty of time you can do it,
> but if you are busy, don't have a car, or can't afford the
> gasoline, you are stuck.
Not necessarily. Most stores have weekly ads showing specials, and Websites
listing prices. I live within easy walking distance of two major chains
(Safeway and Albertsons -- there used to be a third, QFC), and Fred Meyer is
a hop down the road.
In the US, most people living outside cities have access to multiple grocery
stores at "reasonable" distances. (Within cities, you often have a similar
choice in the "better" neighborhoods.) Furthermore, the money saved by
making a single trip with stops at multiple stores outweighs the cost of
gasoline several times over -- sometimes many times.
You read the ads, think about what you want to buy, and make a single trip
to pick it all up. It's that simple.
For the past 50 years, the US has been becoming one huge "suburb". You're
rarely more than a few miles from /anything/ you want to buy.
Brenda Ann
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ibugs4$46c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I could almost believe it, just thinking about hysteresis losses in
transformers, leakage in HT lines, etc.