On Apr 20, 1:00*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT), ransley

wrote:
Germany has a program that I believe pays .43 or so cents a kwh to
anyone installing Solar Panels, power is sold back to the grid.
Germanys goal is to generate 1/3rd of its electrical needs by maybe
2020, last I read they were ahead of schedule. We need something like
that. A goal to reduce fossil fuel needs.

Hi Mark,

There's so much waste and inefficiency baked into our current
electricity use that we could just about eliminate all of the
coal-fired power plants operating in North America if we simply tacked
that first.

Earlier, I mentioned how halogen lamps dominate the retail industry.
A conventional halogen lamp produces 11 to 16 lumens per watt. *The
latest generation of 120-volt halogen-IR lamps from GE and Philips
crank out anywhere from 22 to 24 lumens/watt and a 12-volt MR16 IRC
can reach upwards of 26 lumens/watt, effectively slicing lighting
demands in half (and for every watt saved, you can typically tack on
another 0.3 watts in cooling).

Better yet, Philip's MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide lamps
have a CRI of 90, offer greatly extended long life (10,000+ hours),
outstanding lumen maintenance (nothing else comes even remotely close
to touching it) and generate up to 100 lumens per watt. *Watt for
watt, a Philips 70-watt MasterColour Elite T4.5 will produce six to
seven times more light than the conventional halogen lamps they
replace. *Imagine a large speciality retailer literally slashing its
lighting loads to just one-sixth of it previous levels; that's
possible now using today's off-the-shelf technology.

Cheers,
Paul

How good are T8, where are they going in LPW.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:42:13 -0500, dpb wrote:

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
...
Thanks. I agree with much of what you say but I would caution that
France's near total dependency upon nuclear power places that country
at enormous risk should a common fault emerge with their reactor
design. Ontario's experience with its CANDU reactors has been a
decidedly mixed bag and I'm trying hard to be kind here. As someone
who in a previous (half-)live worked in the regulatory field, I've
witnessed enough to convince me that nuclear does not always live up
to its promise.

What common fault would you expect to emerge after 30-40 years (roughly)
operational experience that hasn't come to light hitherfore?

EDF is certainly one of (if not the) most competent nuclear utilities in
the world and certainly has not stood still in their designs and
operations since their initial reactors.

While there are and have been issues in nuclear generation, it would be
hard to find any similarly large-scale industrial endeavor w/ better (or
even equivalent) overall success.

CANDU is such a different beastie as to make its comparison to other
reactor types a completely useless comparison; hence I don't think it
has any bearing on judging France's position.

(As someone who in a previous (half-)live worked in the field.)

It's not uncommon for common design faults to come to light several
years after their initial commission. Didn't Ford have a massive
recall related to faulty ignition switches that impacted numerous
model lines and several model years (ten or more years perhaps)?

With respect to our experience here in Canada, the pressure tubes in
our CANDU reactors deteriorated at a rate far in excess of what had
been originally anticipated and their failure ultimately resulted in a
costly multi-billion refurbishment of the entire fleet well in advance
of their planned overhauls (well, at least the units that were still
deemed economically viable).

Nuclear is a complex and in many ways unforgiving technology. Let me
just say I hope the French have better luck that we Canadians.

Cheers,
Paul

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
....
Nuclear is a complex and in many ways unforgiving technology. Let me
just say I hope the French have better luck that we Canadians.

It certainly seems as though they are doing quite nicely (and have for
30-some years, so far)... (1)

It is certainly _possible_ for some latent design or material problem to
arise, but seems a pretty farfetched hypothesis on which to base future
energy policy after the accumulated operating reactor-years in the base
pool (particularly when add in that of essentially equivalent designs
throughout the rest of the west).

For large baseload generation (ie, non-load-following), it's hard to
conceive a better solution in hand outside the wishful thinking crowd's
suggestions.

(1) Of course, a modern coal-fired plant isn't exactly trivial
technology, either!

--

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:18:38 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On Apr 20, 1:00*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

Earlier, I mentioned how halogen lamps dominate the retail industry.
A conventional halogen lamp produces 11 to 16 lumens per watt. *The
latest generation of 120-volt halogen-IR lamps from GE and Philips
crank out anywhere from 22 to 24 lumens/watt and a 12-volt MR16 IRC
can reach upwards of 26 lumens/watt, effectively slicing lighting
demands in half (and for every watt saved, you can typically tack on
another 0.3 watts in cooling).

Better yet, Philip's MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide lamps
have a CRI of 90, offer greatly extended long life (10,000+ hours),
outstanding lumen maintenance (nothing else comes even remotely close
to touching it) and generate up to 100 lumens per watt. *Watt for
watt, a Philips 70-watt MasterColour Elite T4.5 will produce six to
seven times more light than the conventional halogen lamps they
replace. *Imagine a large speciality retailer literally slashing its
lighting loads to just one-sixth of it previous levels; that's
possible now using today's off-the-shelf technology.

Cheers,
Paul

How good are T8, where are they going in LPW.

Off the top of my head, I believe the latest generation of 32-watt
"Super T8s" such as Osram Sylvania's XPS line generate 3,100 lumens
at an 0.87 ballast factor. Driven by their latest generation of high
efficiency Quictronic ballasts, we should be reaching upwards of 107
lumens per watt. It's possible that the 25, 28, or 30-watt versions
could exceed this; I'd have to dig through my catalogues to know for
sure, but 107 seems to be the number that sticks out in my mind.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:41:42 -0500, dpb wrote:

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
...
Nuclear is a complex and in many ways unforgiving technology. Let me
just say I hope the French have better luck that we Canadians.

It certainly seems as though they are doing quite nicely (and have for
30-some years, so far)... (1)

It is certainly _possible_ for some latent design or material problem to
arise, but seems a pretty farfetched hypothesis on which to base future
energy policy after the accumulated operating reactor-years in the base
pool (particularly when add in that of essentially equivalent designs
throughout the rest of the west).

For large baseload generation (ie, non-load-following), it's hard to
conceive a better solution in hand outside the wishful thinking crowd's
suggestions.

(1) Of course, a modern coal-fired plant isn't exactly trivial
technology, either!

Well, bear in mind this is the same country that brought us the
Renault, Peugeot and Citroën. =:0

And with that your honour, I rest my case. ;-)

Cheers,
Paul "That would be MISTER MOPAR to YOU" Eldridge

In article , Marissa Payton wrote:

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release
Mercury!! Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc.
goes into the environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator
releases. That's assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including
dropped on your kitchen floor.

In the USA, power plants produce mercury emissions if they burn coal. A
lot of the USA's electricity comes from burning coal. Average USA coal
has a mercury content high enough for replacement of incandescents with
CFLs to actually decrease the amount of mercury going into the
environment.

Keep in mind that a CFL has about 1% or less as much mercury as a
mercury fever thermometer, and around a thousandth or two of the mercury
of a mercury thermostat switch.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Marissa Payton wrote:

Ideally it would make sense to follow the lead of countries such as
France, who make almost all of their electricity without burning any
fossil fuels. But the US has reversed its (temporary) earlier leadership
in this area and continues to depend more and more on fossil fuels,
including coal.

Burning coal isn't optimal, but newer technologies can at least remove
major pollutants, including mercury. Unfortuanately a lot of plants are
old and emit a lot more mercury than newer technology plants. Public
policy that permits these emissions and does not discourage them to phase
out is bad public policy. Unfortunately US energy policy has been bad
public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during my lifetime.


We have old coal fired power plants for all of these many reasons:

1. Nobody wants a new cleaner one in their backyard - the NIMBYs will
oppose it as a polluter!

2. Every non-oil power plant that can be used reduces the need to burn
oil.

3. Nuclear power has stagnated in the USA for the past 30 years, in the
name of protecting the environment!

4. Demand for electric energy has continued to grow, due to population
increase and air-conditioning all of the McMansions that have popped up in
the last decade. 300 watt torchiere lamps and larger size TVs also
contributed somewhat to increasing demand for electric energty.

- Don Klipstein )

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
....
Well, bear in mind this is the same country that brought us the
Renault, Peugeot and Citroën. =:0

And with that your honour, I rest my case. ;-)
....

Excepting, of course, they started w/ US design for the most part...

Seriously, imo experience trumps conjecture of what if and their
experience has been pretty good for quite a significant time period for
not a small population sample.

I haven't kept up much on the CANDU situation -- weren't tube failures
primarily a water chemistry problem?

--

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:59:57 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

Keep in mind that a CFL has about 1% or less as much mercury as a
mercury fever thermometer, and around a thousandth or two of the mercury
of a mercury thermostat switch.

- Don Klipstein )

Hi Don,

For anyone who hasn't met Don before, he's *THE* man when it comes to
lighting. Take a bow, my friend!

I'm too lazy to look this up, but I believe a Philips Universal
Alto-II CFL is now down to just 1.7 mg of Hg, is it not? When
combined with a 15,000 rated life, the amount of Hg they release into
the wild at their EOL is a tiny fraction of what comes out of a coal
stack. And if properly recycled or otherwise disposed, their direct
contribution is effectively nil (e.g., some retail stores such as IKEA
now offer this service at no charge).

I understand the three Honeywell thermostats in my home have a
combined Hg content in excess of 2,700 mg -- the equivalent of some
1,600 of these Philips lamps.

Cheers,
Paul

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

OK, Home Depot has a NINE year warranty on cfls, you get an HD charge
and they keep the reciept, popular Mechanics Magazines review of CFLs
to incandesants has HDs N:Vision home brand of soft white even Better
than Incandesant at skin rendition, the wife will like that. They dont
Dimm yet, but soon thay will. So you buy a HD bulb and loose the
reciept in 3 yaers, buy another one and return the old one. And save
75% in lighting. In Oct 07 I bought about 50 at 50$ at HD. enough for
I hope a few years at my many locations. Theft is my issue, But my
electric bill is down 50%. A 4 pack of 9w = 40 watt are about 8$ ,
and only 4$ in October. I still say Tax Incandesants and Rebate
Flourescents Today , not Buches 2010 BS of phoney improvements and no
real policy.

Hi Mark,

Just with respect to colour rendering, there are no CFLs that can
outperform incandescents in terms of their colour accuracy; the best
available for residential applications top out at 84 to 86 CRI versus
incandescents that have a CRI of 97 to 100. You can have CFLs that
are rich in pink that might arguably enhance skin tones, but they will
end up distorting other colours and, frankly, may God rest her soul, I
don't want my lighting to look like it came out of Barbara Cartland's
boudoir.

With all due respect, I would like to point out that CRI is defined in
terms of blackbody radiation being "The Standard". As a result,
incandescent will achieve 100 or very close.

Some people actually like color rendering that is distorted from "The
Standard".
An example of a lamp that sells because of this is incandescents with
bulbs made of neodymium glass, with the best-known example being GE
Reveal. CRI is (IIRC, anyone knowing better please correct me!) about 80,
with the main color distortions being that red and green objects are
rendered more brightly and vividly than under best-color-match light that
has a CRI of 100. Skin tones come up a little pinker also.

I consider it a shame that GE Reveals actually sell. Not because of any
philosophy of color rendering, but because these lamps are even less
energy-efficient than regular incandescents! The tinted bulb removes some
of the light and does not add any!

- Don Klipstein )

On Apr 20, 2:30*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:





On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:
OK, Home Depot has a NINE year warranty on cfls, you get an *HD charge
and they keep the reciept, popular Mechanics Magazines review of CFLs
to incandesants has HDs N:Vision home brand of soft white even Better
than Incandesant at skin rendition, the wife will like that. They dont
Dimm yet, but soon thay will. So you buy a HD bulb and loose the
reciept in 3 yaers, buy another one and return the old one. And save
75% in lighting. In Oct 07 I bought *about 50 at 50$ at HD. enough for
I hope a few years at my many locations. Theft is my issue, But my
electric bill is down 50%. *A 4 pack of 9w = 40 watt are about 8$ *,
and only 4$ in October. I still say Tax Incandesants and Rebate
Flourescents Today , not Buches 2010 BS of phoney improvements and no
real policy.

Hi Mark,

Just with respect to colour rendering, there are no CFLs that can
outperform incandescents in terms of their colour accuracy; the best
available for residential applications top out at 84 to 86 CRI versus
incandescents that have a CRI of 97 to 100. *You can have CFLs that
are rich in pink that might arguably enhance skin tones, but they will
end up distorting other colours and, frankly, may God rest her soul, I
don't want my lighting to look like it came out of Barbara Cartland's
boudoir.

* With all due respect, I would like to point out that CRI is defined in
terms of blackbody radiation being "The Standard". *As a result,
incandescent will achieve 100 or very close.

* Some people actually like color rendering that is distorted from "The
Standard".
* An example of a lamp that sells because of this is incandescents with
bulbs made of neodymium glass, with the best-known example being GE
Reveal. *CRI is (IIRC, anyone knowing better please correct me!) about 80,
with the main color distortions being that red and green objects are
rendered more brightly and vividly than under best-color-match light that
has a CRI of 100. *Skin tones come up a little pinker also.

* I consider it a shame that GE Reveals actually sell. *Not because of any
philosophy of color rendering, but because these lamps are even less
energy-efficient than regular incandescents! *The tinted bulb removes some
of the light and does not add any!

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Reveal is a real waster, its 11 LPW.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:09 -0500, dpb wrote:

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
...
Well, bear in mind this is the same country that brought us the
Renault, Peugeot and Citroën. =:0

And with that your honour, I rest my case. ;-)
...

Excepting, of course, they started w/ US design for the most part...

Seriously, imo experience trumps conjecture of what if and their
experience has been pretty good for quite a significant time period for
not a small population sample.

I haven't kept up much on the CANDU situation -- weren't tube failures
primarily a water chemistry problem?

Well, as Betty Furness liked to tell us "you can be SURE if it's
Westinghouse".... ;-)

The pressure tubes in these CANDU reactors are made from a Zr-2.5Nb
alloy and are susceptible to something called Delayed Hydride Cracking
or "DHC", which is caused by a diffusion of hydrogen atoms that in
turn leads to the formation of hydride palelets. Over time, small
hairline fractures can develop which continue to grow and can
ultimately lead to castrophic failure, as had occured at Pickering A's
No. 2 reactor in August, 1983. Simply put, these zircaloy tubes are
prone to corrosion and blistering.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:30:21 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

Hi Mark,

Just with respect to colour rendering, there are no CFLs that can
outperform incandescents in terms of their colour accuracy; the best
available for residential applications top out at 84 to 86 CRI versus
incandescents that have a CRI of 97 to 100. You can have CFLs that
are rich in pink that might arguably enhance skin tones, but they will
end up distorting other colours and, frankly, may God rest her soul, I
don't want my lighting to look like it came out of Barbara Cartland's
boudoir.

With all due respect, I would like to point out that CRI is defined in
terms of blackbody radiation being "The Standard". As a result,
incandescent will achieve 100 or very close.

Some people actually like color rendering that is distorted from "The
Standard".
An example of a lamp that sells because of this is incandescents with
bulbs made of neodymium glass, with the best-known example being GE
Reveal. CRI is (IIRC, anyone knowing better please correct me!) about 80,
with the main color distortions being that red and green objects are
rendered more brightly and vividly than under best-color-match light that
has a CRI of 100. Skin tones come up a little pinker also.

I consider it a shame that GE Reveals actually sell. Not because of any
philosophy of color rendering, but because these lamps are even less
energy-efficient than regular incandescents! The tinted bulb removes some
of the light and does not add any!

- Don Klipstein )

Hi Don,

That's possible. Some CMH lamps such as the new MasterColour Elites
are rich in the reds which could be considered a desirable trait in
many retail environments. On the other hand, I can detect a slight
green tinge from some first generation GE HIR lamps that I'm told is
attributable to the IR-coating. Normally it's not that noticeable,
but there are certain situations where it is unmistakable and
unwelcome.

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:


Well, bear in mind this is the same country that brought us the
Renault, Peugeot and Citroën. =:0

And with that your honour, I rest my case. ;-)

Can't say I've driven a Citroën lately, but all the Peugeots and Renaults
that I have had the pleasure of driving in the past few years have been
excellent. You are not comparing French cars made decades ago with today's
cars from other places, are you? Japanese cars used to be a joke; look at
them today.

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
....

Well, as Betty Furness liked to tell us "you can be SURE if it's
Westinghouse".... ;-)

We, of course, referred to them as "circle-W". They were a competitor
when in the previous life noted...but, not the primary one for our
niche--C-E was the more direct foe in almost every instance when it got
down to the final selection.

But, one has to make a living and as I had gone the consulting route,
when nuclear work started getting scarce it was simpler to migrate to
support the fossil utilities instead of continuing to fight harder for
piece of the dwindling pie.

I'm beyond the point now where I'll actively seek work again (and I so
far I've been able to raise the ante high enough to discourage those who
still call and yet restrain myself ) so the renaissance, if there is
one, will have to be picked up by the young'uns...

Unlike virtually all my previous cohorts who are still working, I'm
_NOT_ going to India or China!!!

--

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:15:51 -0500, dpb wrote:

Unlike virtually all my previous cohorts who are still working, I'm
_NOT_ going to India or China!!!

Congratulations! Good for you. And, err, sorry about that "W" thing.

[Although I'll quickly add that I've always considered Westinghouse a
truly great American company and it saddens me to think of how it was
driven into the ground.]

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:15:36 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:


Well, bear in mind this is the same country that brought us the
Renault, Peugeot and Citroën. =:0

And with that your honour, I rest my case. ;-)

Can't say I've driven a Citroën lately, but all the Peugeots and Renaults
that I have had the pleasure of driving in the past few years have been
excellent. You are not comparing French cars made decades ago with today's
cars from other places, are you? Japanese cars used to be a joke; look at
them today.

Hi Marissa,

That's true. I rode around for a week in a Peugeot min-van on my last
visit to the U.K. and I have to admit it was pretty impressive
vehicle. All three nameplates were sold here in Canada up until the
mid 1980s and they were considered only a half step above the British
and Italian -- which is to say, not very good at all. I came close to
buying a Peugeot 505 back in 1985, then quickly shook my head and
asked myself what in hell was I thinking. Instead, I bought a SAAB
900 Turbo SPG but, if you don't mind, I'd rather not relive that
particular nightmare, thank you!

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:15:51 -0500, dpb wrote:

Unlike virtually all my previous cohorts who are still working, I'm
_NOT_ going to India or China!!!

Congratulations! Good for you. And, err, sorry about that "W" thing.

[Although I'll quickly add that I've always considered Westinghouse a
truly great American company and it saddens me to think of how it was
driven into the ground.]

Actually, it wasn't driven into the ground. Westinghouse purchased CBS in
the mid nineties, then renamed itself CBS. The new CBS was later
purchased by Viacom, which still owns it today (and various other media
brands. The Group W Westinghouse radio stations were grouped with the
Infinity radio division, which CBS also owned. Numerous old Westinghouse
divisions were sold off, including the nuclear division, which continued
to keep the Westinghouse name. It was a subsidiary of a British company
for a number of years until Toshiba recently purchased it. Westinghouse
Nuclear is still based in Western Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, there just
isn't enough USA business to make it a viable independent concern.

Consumer products are being sold under the "Westinghouse" name again, but
these are typically third party manufacturers who license the name from
Viacom.

Marissa Payton wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:15:51 -0500, dpb wrote:

Unlike virtually all my previous cohorts who are still working, I'm
_NOT_ going to India or China!!!
Congratulations! Good for you. And, err, sorry about that "W" thing.

[Although I'll quickly add that I've always considered Westinghouse a
truly great American company and it saddens me to think of how it was
driven into the ground.]

Actually, it wasn't driven into the ground. Westinghouse purchased CBS in
the mid nineties, then renamed itself CBS. The new CBS was later
purchased by Viacom, which still owns it today (and various other media
brands. The Group W Westinghouse radio stations were grouped with the
Infinity radio division, which CBS also owned. Numerous old Westinghouse
divisions were sold off, including the nuclear division, which continued
to keep the Westinghouse name. It was a subsidiary of a British company
for a number of years until Toshiba recently purchased it. Westinghouse
Nuclear is still based in Western Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, there just
isn't enough USA business to make it a viable independent concern.

Consumer products are being sold under the "Westinghouse" name again, but
these are typically third party manufacturers who license the name from
Viacom.

That's a pretty good synopsis of driving the W corporation into the
ground imo...

--

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:15:51 -0500, dpb wrote:

Unlike virtually all my previous cohorts who are still working, I'm
_NOT_ going to India or China!!!
Congratulations! Good for you. And, err, sorry about that "W" thing.

[Although I'll quickly add that I've always considered Westinghouse a
truly great American company and it saddens me to think of how it was
driven into the ground.]

Actually, it wasn't driven into the ground. Westinghouse purchased CBS in
the mid nineties, then renamed itself CBS. The new CBS was later
purchased by Viacom, which still owns it today (and various other media
brands. The Group W Westinghouse radio stations were grouped with the
Infinity radio division, which CBS also owned. Numerous old Westinghouse
divisions were sold off, including the nuclear division, which continued
to keep the Westinghouse name. It was a subsidiary of a British company
for a number of years until Toshiba recently purchased it. Westinghouse
Nuclear is still based in Western Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, there just
isn't enough USA business to make it a viable independent concern.

Consumer products are being sold under the "Westinghouse" name again, but
these are typically third party manufacturers who license the name from
Viacom.

That's a pretty good synopsis of driving the W corporation into the
ground imo...

Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. The
broadcasting business had become their most important Westinghouse business and
it probably didn't make sense to keep such a diverse and loosely connected
business together due to the difficulty of one corporation to focus on so many
dissimilar operations, of various profitabilities. Arch rival General Electric
was more successful at keeping a widely diversified conglomerate together, but
they managed to find economies of scale when possible (e.g. matching aircraft
engines with aircraft leasing) etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually
divest broadcasting, including NBC. General Electric stock hasn't moved much in
years. (Well, until last week, when it took a tumble.)

Marissa Payton wrote:
....
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. ...

_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...

--

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. ...

_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...

The end result is that Westinghouse is a fairly healthy company today, albeit with a
new name of its choosing and a parent company.

Marissa Payton wrote:

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. ...
_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...

The end result is that Westinghouse is a fairly healthy company today, albeit with a
new name of its choosing and a parent company.

And a mere shell of what _the_ Westinghouse of George was...

--

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. ...
_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...

The end result is that Westinghouse is a fairly healthy company today, albeit with a
new name of its choosing and a parent company.

And a mere shell of what _the_ Westinghouse of George was...

This article is getting dated, but it might help you understand "What Happened to
Westinghouse."


http://news.pghtech.org/teq/teqstory.cfm?id=229

Marissa Payton wrote:
dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. ...
_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...
The end result is that Westinghouse is a fairly healthy company today, albeit with a
new name of its choosing and a parent company.
And a mere shell of what _the_ Westinghouse of George was...

This article is getting dated, but it might help you understand "What Happened to
Westinghouse."

I pretty much know what happened...

--

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa versa. ...
_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...
The end result is that Westinghouse is a fairly healthy company today, albeit with a
new name of its choosing and a parent company.
And a mere shell of what _the_ Westinghouse of George was...

This article is getting dated, but it might help you understand "What Happened to
Westinghouse."

I pretty much know what happened...

Fantastic. Then you already knew that many of the former Westinghouse divisions are doing
far better today than they were as part of Westinghouse. Perhaps someone else may be
interested in reading the article: http://news.pghtech.org/teq/teqstory.cfm?id=229

Marissa Payton wrote:
....
Fantastic. ...

So what's your connection to circle-W?

(Just curious why the expression of a sense of loss of a couple of ol'
geezers on an institutional corporation evokes such a strong reaction.)

It was a bitter competition years ago and we used to think and say lots
of nasty things about them, but I knew many good people (who just chose
to work for the wrong company. Of course, they said the same thing. ).

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa
versa. ...

_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...

It's interesting to note that Westinghouse Electric started the FIRST
commercial broadcast station in the worth (KDKA, Pittsburgh.)

When it purchased CBS it was only catching up on over 50 years of letting
the potential of broadcasting slip between it's fingers.

I worked for Westinghouse for a short time in the mid 60s. They had a
"company store" that sold consumer products that W still made. Even then,
Westinghouse had lost the quality control battle and they should have sold
that business (with the name attached) while it was worth selling (that's
what GE did.)

I have picked up a PC monitor with the Westinghouse name. While I knew
that it had no connection to the old Pittsburgh company (except for the
"rented' name) it likely tilted my purchase decision a little.

Since just about 100% of our comsumer electronics is made in Asia the names
are just an attempt to imply ties to American that don't really exist.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:06:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
dpb wrote:
...

And a mere shell of what _the_ Westinghouse of George was...

"He [George Westinghouse] was one of the world's true noblemen, of whom
America may well be proud and to whom humanity owes an immense debt of
gratitude." - Nikola Tesla

This article is getting dated, but it might help you understand "What Happened to
Westinghouse."
I pretty much know what happened...
...
interested in reading the article: http://news.pghtech.org/teq/teqstory.cfm?id=229

That article is classifiable as making a silk purse from a sow's ear I
see...

"... Westinghouse found itself sinking under the weight of bad real
estate loans and struggling desperately for survival.

In the end, the name survived, but the institution did not. Beginning in
the mid-1980s, Westinghouse began to divest itself of its many
businesses in an attempt to service billions of dollars in debt. The end
of its role as an industrial icon was sealed in 1995 when it acquired
CBS Corp. ..."

As noted, mismanagement and diversion from the business that got them
where they were when the MBA suits got control forced their hand.

That the Pittsburgh Technology Council has a vested interest in painting
the present situation in as good a light as possible is understandable,
but doesn't hide the fact that the management of W drove the bus into an
underpass abutment a la Diana.

There's no way to tell, of course, but it's quite possible if management
hadn't been diverted by their wandering pursuit of quick returns in the
financial and other unrelated business areas the core businesses would
have done as well or even better.

And, of course, much of GE's problems can be traced to the same or
similar dilution of focus during the same time frame.

I've given enough hints that it shouldn't be at all difficult to tell
with which competitor I was -- I departed their when they were acquired
from outside owing to observing that new management was not an R&D
organization and being in internally-funded R&D organization wasn't
going to be career-enhancing. Consequently, I went the consulting route
rather than waiting for the inevitable.

Thank you. I fully agree with your assessment. Westinghouse was
slowly bled to death by senior management in an effort to maximize
shareholder return, whatever the long-term cost. Their management
suite was the original "Dilbert Zone".

The Tesla quote you provided speaks to the personal character and true
genius of this man. I believe I'm correct I'm saying that George held
more patents than even Thomas Edison and Edison was known to patent
anything that came within ten feet of his person, including his
shadow.

Cheers,
Paul

John Gilmer wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Marissa Payton wrote:
...
Perhaps but remember it was Westinghouse who purchased CBS, not visa
versa. ...

_Who_ did it for whatever perceived reason(s) is immaterial to the end
result...

It's interesting to note that Westinghouse Electric started the FIRST
commercial broadcast station in the worth (KDKA, Pittsburgh.)

When it purchased CBS it was only catching up on over 50 years of letting
the potential of broadcasting slip between it's fingers.

Since broadcasting was already Westinghouse's most profitable business (by far)
BEFORE they purchased CBS, I'm not sure what you mean about "letting the
potential of broadcasting slip between its fingers."

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:06:01 -0500, dpb wrote:
....
... the management of W drove the bus into an
underpass abutment a la Diana.

There's no way to tell, of course, but it's quite possible if management
hadn't been diverted by their wandering pursuit of quick returns in the
financial and other unrelated business areas the core businesses would
have done as well or even better.
....
Thank you. I fully agree with your assessment. Westinghouse was
slowly bled to death by senior management in an effort to maximize
shareholder return, whatever the long-term cost. Their management
suite was the original "Dilbert Zone".

The Tesla quote you provided speaks to the personal character and true
genius of this man. I believe I'm correct I'm saying that George held
more patents than even Thomas Edison and Edison was known to patent
anything that came within ten feet of his person, including his
shadow.

You're welcome...little did I think _I_ would ever be defending W!

On the bleeding, I don't think it qualifies as particularly slow at all;
it actually was pretty quick after the financial business stuff starting
going south.

I agree on the assessment of Westinghouse himself wholeheartedly -- he
was a "helluvan engineer"...

--