In article ,
VWWall writes:
Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on
thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit
elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture
rather than brute speed.

Possibly in the x86 arena, but this idea originated elsewhere;
Sun UltraSPARC IV predated it, and the earlier work of Afara Websystems
which eventually led to Sun's original 8-core Niagra SPARC chip.

Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are
good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at
which data is supplied to it.

Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly
addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and

32 bit OS's have been accessing over 4GB memory for well over a decade.
Even PC's, which were probably the last hardware platform to do so,
introduced Intel's PAE with the Pentium Pro (1995?).

cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of
a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.

Databases and other applications accessing over 4Gb of data are
not exactly rare.

In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32
bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs
Microsoft has produced.)

OK, 64 bit Windows might be of limited use, but don't tarnish all
OS's with such a claim. The x86/PC architecture allows 32 bit and
64 bit applications to run together on the same OS (OS permitting).

With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the
BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the
one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".

I don't think any PC OS's still use the BIOS once booted for
at least a decade, and in some cases nearer 2 decades.

Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better
input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.

and better OS's (in multiple respects).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
VWWall writes:
Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on
thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit
elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture
rather than brute speed.

Possibly in the x86 arena, but this idea originated elsewhere;
Sun UltraSPARC IV predated it, and the earlier work of Afara Websystems
which eventually led to Sun's original 8-core Niagra SPARC chip.

I was referring to CPUs in common use in PCs. There have been a lot of
special purpose CPUs, none of which has a large following. I recall one
that didn't even have an increment instruction. Instead of x++ you used
x=x+1! They claimed the addition instruction was faster.

Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are
good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at
which data is supplied to it.

Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly
addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and

32 bit OS's have been accessing over 4GB memory for well over a decade.
Even PC's, which were probably the last hardware platform to do so,
introduced Intel's PAE with the Pentium Pro (1995?).

By "directly" I meant having a register capable of holding the address
of 4GB memory. There have been "segmented" memory programs since Bill
Gates said 940KB was plenty for anyone.

cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of
a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.

Databases and other applications accessing over 4Gb of data are
not exactly rare.

PhotoShop in the last few releases, can, with a 64bit OS, use memory
instead of writing to disk.

In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32
bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs
Microsoft has produced.)

OK, 64 bit Windows might be of limited use, but don't tarnish all
OS's with such a claim. The x86/PC architecture allows 32 bit and
64 bit applications to run together on the same OS (OS permitting).

This is written using 32bit Linux, (PCLOS), on a 64bit AMD CPU. The
same box multi-boots WinXP x64 as well as a couple of 64bit Linux
distros, openSUSE 11.0 being the latest. Actually, Win XP x64 runs most
of my applications better than the 32bit version. The few 64bit drivers
available are an improvement.

I've been running Linux with kernels capable of 4GB memory use for some
time. The lack of 64bit drivers in addition to applications, limits its
usefulness. I had great hopes for Vists 64bit, but it looks like it's
not doing much to encourage 64bit development.

Many of the less expensive motherboards cannot handle 8GB 0f memory. I
have seen a couple, that had the slots, but slowed memory access when
fully populated.

With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the
BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the
one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".

I don't think any PC OS's still use the BIOS once booted for
at least a decade, and in some cases nearer 2 decades.

They've added LBA 48, ext 13, APCI. My old DOS debug still runs on it!

Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better
input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.

and better OS's (in multiple respects).

Someone once said the reason God could create the universe in six days
was because it didn't have to be backward compatible! :-)

--
Virg Wall

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland
wrote:




There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with
something.

As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the
drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants
(under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular
inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ...
and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power
demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones
powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC
feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are
not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ...
desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms.

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for
limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about
700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency
for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and
nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not
counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it.
Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it,
might not be such a bad idea...



My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to
see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that
has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last
for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure
is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at
the rate we are growing in our use).

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level
of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
except for plants who would say "Yum!"



To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas,
then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that
much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even
criminal governments who
are the current suppliers.


It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's
payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're
at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of
terror.

In article , HeyBub wrote
in part:

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current
level of 0.003% of the atmosphere,

Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.

a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
except for plants who would say "Yum!"

Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of
current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that would
exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water vapor).

How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about 36%
above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the
limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more than
CO2 content in the atmosphere.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , (Paul M. Eldridge) writes:
| On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| In article s0c7k.232$zE6.219@trnddc02, (James Sweet) writes:
| |
| |
| | In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
| | at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
| | they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
| | from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)
| |
| | Dan Lanciani
| | ddl@danlan.*com
| |
| |
| | Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot
| | cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.
|
| And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW
| versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering
| index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy
| conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40
| and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W
| versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast
| replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty
| much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)?
|
| Dan Lanciani
| ddl@danlan.*com
|
|
| Hi Dan,
|
| Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture
| would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy
| saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or
| 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.

I get kind of confused when several variables change at once.
Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago
and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the
60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both
assumptions happen to reflect reality. How does my energy usage
today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white
tubes?

| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO
| (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a
| standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens
| from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI)
| at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic
| ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.

Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher
efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

In article , (Paul M. Eldridge) writes:
| On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| Hi Dan,
|
| Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture
| would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy
| saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or
| 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.

I get kind of confused when several variables change at once.
Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago
and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the
60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both
assumptions happen to reflect reality. How does my energy usage
today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white
tubes?


Hi Dan,

If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original
ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.


| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO
| (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a
| standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens
| from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI)
| at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic
| ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.

Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher
efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?


You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic
ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps. However, if
you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an
electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes; the benefits a

* 40% energy savings (110-watts versus 180-watts)
* 50% longer lamp life (18,000 hours versus 12,000 hours)
* cooler operation (potentially helpful in warmer climates)
* silent operation (no annoying ballast hum)
* no flicker (important if you work with some types of machinery)
* typically better colour rendering (improved light quality)
* better lumen maintenance (more light over the life of the tube)
* typically better cold weather performance (starting down to 0F)
* better long-term availability of replacement lamps (???)

A 75-watt F96T12 + standard magnetic ballast is the technical
equivalent of a 1978 Ford Granada. It may have been considered a good
performer in its day (** snicker **), but thirty years later we've
thankfully moved the goal posts a little further.

Cheers,
Paul

VWWall wrote:


By "directly" I meant having a register capable of holding the address
of 4GB memory. There have been "segmented" memory programs since Bill
Gates said 940KB was plenty for anyone.


That was 640 kB.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

On Jun 23, 8:51*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland
wrote:

There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with
something.
As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the
drilling for oil. *I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants
(under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular
inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ...
and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power
demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones
powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC
feeders). *I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are
not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ...
desert spaces should be OK). *I'm in favor of building wind farms.

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for
limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about
700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency
for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and
nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not
counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it.
Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it,
might not be such a bad idea...



My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to
see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that
has been naturally sequestered. *Also, known oil reserves won't last
for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure
is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at
the rate we are growing in our use).

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level
of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
except for plants who would say "Yum!"



To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas,
then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that
much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even
criminal governments who
are the current suppliers.

It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's
payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're
at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of
terror.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can
be done.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub
wrote in part:

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the
current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere,

Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.


Ah, right. Thanks for the correction.


a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
except for plants who would say "Yum!"

Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of
current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that
would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water
vapor).



How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about
36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the
limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more
than CO2 content in the atmosphere.

36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels
constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2
levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've
gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and
invented pop-top beer containers.

In my view, the progress was worth it. Others may differ.

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Cheers,
Paul

Paul M. Eldridge wrote in
:

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical.
We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos.
Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Paul M. Eldridge wrote in
:

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical.
We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos.
Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy.

Why not Geothermal? Available everywhere and free after you drill a few
holes. Used in many places around the world and a recent study says New
York could benefit greatly.

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
| mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
| lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home
for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
| mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
| lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home
for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?

What I read somewhere is if it breaks and gets on your rug you're
supposed to cut out the section of rug.. Jeez.
I used to play with mercury when I was a kid, rolled it around in my
hand, etc. Now they close a school if a thermometer breaks (they really
did this at a Delaware school..)
And yet there are near NO cases of mercury poisoning reported in a year..
Eric

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 21 Jun 2008 15:04:27 GMT, wrote:
|
||What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
||I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.
||
||I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
||for the most part this doesn't really affect me.
||
||We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.
||
|| Hi Phil,
||
|| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
|| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
|| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
|| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).
|
|So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
|power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
| opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen?
| ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
| incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.
|
| If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
| MR16 are some of the best available.
|
| See:
| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5758.pdf

5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of
regular use (about 5 hours a day).

I've been considering both MR16 (GU5.3 12v) and MR11 (what pin for 6v?)
for various lighting fixtures in the home I'll be building. I may opt
for the smaller ones so I can select the illumination level by turning
selected lights on and off rather than dimming. My original idea was
to go with 6 volt 12 watt lights if those are available in MR11 or some
other kind of halogen form factor.

What I don't like about these lights is the pitch of the facet in the
reflector. I would like the pitch to be about 10 to 20 times smaller.
A frosted glass would, of course, help, too.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:

| wrote:
| In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland
| wrote:
|
|
|
|
| There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with
| something.
|
| As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the
| drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants
| (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular
| inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ...
| and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power
| demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones
| powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC
| feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are
| not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ...
| desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms.
|
| Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for
| limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about
| 700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency
| for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and
| nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
| basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not
| counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it.
| Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it,
| might not be such a bad idea...

I'm not expecting these energy sources to be the complete supply (at least
not for a few decades). But I do believe we need to build them, anyway,
to help supplement the carbon-extraction process we depend on now.


| My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to
| see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that
| has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last
| for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure
| is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at
| the rate we are growing in our use).
|
| What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level
| of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
| except for plants who would say "Yum!"

You really think that?


| To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas,
| then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that
| much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even
| criminal governments who
| are the current suppliers.
|
|
| It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's
| payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're
| at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of
| terror.

Huh?

We don't want to depend on others for our oil. We do depend on them now and
it's a component of why we are at the mercy of their pricing. THEIR greatest
fear is that WE don't want their oil anymore.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:
| Don Klipstein wrote:
| In article , HeyBub
| wrote in part:
|
| What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the
| current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere,
|
| Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.
|
|
| Ah, right. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
| a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
| except for plants who would say "Yum!"
|
| Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of
| current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that
| would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water
| vapor).
|
|
|
| How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about
| 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the
| limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more
| than CO2 content in the atmosphere.
|
| 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels
| constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2
| levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've
| gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and
| invented pop-top beer containers.

Life expectancy has actually turned the corner and is going back down.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On 24 Jun 2008 16:26:25 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
| mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
| lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:
|
| http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home
for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?


Hi Phil,

A Philips F32T8XLL contains 1.7 mg of Hg and has a rated life of
36,000 hours when operated on instant start ballasts (3 hours per
start). It provides roughly the same amount of light as two 100-watt
soft white incandescent lamps (~ 3,000 lumens). With ballast losses,
we might peg its power consumption at about 30-watts (0.88 BF).

Over the life of this lamp, it would consume 1,080 kWh, whereas the
two equivalent incandescents would total 7,200 kWh -- a difference, in
this case, of some 6,100 kWh.

Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the
generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg
into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg
contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure
landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas
the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately
pollutes our air, land and water.

Cheers,
Paul

On 24 Jun 2008 17:20:49 GMT, wrote:

| Hi Phil,
|
| Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
| opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen?
| ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
| incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.
|
| If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
| MR16 are some of the best available.
|
| See:
| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5758.pdf

5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of
regular use (about 5 hours a day).


Hi Phil,

In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life
of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good
(since our original conversation pertained to standard household
incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light
sources).

If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents
have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you
indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in
your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I
presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

Cheers,
Paul

metspitzer wrote:

"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the
anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using
energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe
stated.

(Story continues below)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

What we really need is new sources of *portable* energy. It's hard to
beat gasoline where a single bucket, (10 L), contains ~90 KWh.

Portable energy is the kind that fuels our cars, trucks, aircraft, most
boats and many trains.

Storing energy, from whatever source, requires many times the volume
and/or weight of fossil fuels, and can't be carried in a "bucket".

Ethanol may be an exception, having about two thirds the energy content
of gasoline, but as many have pointed out here, it has its own problems.

So far, political correctness doesn't seem to be one of them!

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

Chuck wrote in news:8A88k.69902$102.14133@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Paul M. Eldridge wrote in
:

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical.
We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos.
Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy.

Why not Geothermal? Available everywhere and free after you drill a few
holes. Used in many places around the world and a recent study says New
York could benefit greatly.


I don't believe geothermal IS "available everywhere",nor practical.
(it has limits)
I also doubt it's used in "many places around the world".
Some,yes,"many",no.

Nuclear is reliable,clean,and safe,providing LOTS of electric power
24/7/365.
France and Japan get most of their electric power from nuclear plants,and
don't seem to have any problem with waste disposal.If they can do it,we
can,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
says...
For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

How about nukes instead?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:
| In article ,
| says...
| In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:
| | In article , phil-news-
| | says...
| | In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | | I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
| | | the idea of taxing cheap imports.
| | |
| | |
| | | Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
| | | policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.
| |
| | And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
| | places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
| | first place, if you need an example.
| |
| | The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout
| | (and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion.
| | Let 'em sink.
|
| Totally unregulated markets are known to have ups and downs that can sometimes
| get way out of whack. The bailout is to avoid a sinking that would just make
| it go even further out of whack, or take other markets down with it.
|
| Perhaps true, but irrelevant.
|
| The regulation I would focus on is to have avoided the whole mess in the first
| place, and provide for a stable growth. The MINIMUM regulation to achieve that
| would be my goal.
|
| I agree, but also irrelevant.
|
| The stupid businesses _should_ sink. But when it's a case of the sinking ship
| taking other things down with it, that needs to be avoided.
|
| Agreed, but also irrelevant. The *point* is that bailing out those
| who made bad bets allows them another chance to do so and telegraphs
| a terrible message to everyone else. *THAT* is distorting the
| market.

NOT bailing them out just exacerbates the market decline. The correct thing
to have done would be to separate the bad decision makers from any benefits
of the bailout. Unfortunately, laws are not in place to do that effectively.

I agree somewhat[*], but that wasn't my point.
[*] This isn't a binary decision. The note-holders can be left to
choke in their own sludge. Buy up the mortgages from the failing
mortgage holders for nothing, turn around and sell them for more
than they're worth. It might take a while, but the real estate
market *will* come back. When it does, the Fed makes out like a
bandit. In the mean time, let the people (the ones who actually
occupy the houses) stay for the $$ on the original note. There are
a billion ways to skin this cat, making sure the next guy doesn't
take useless paper and perhaps turning this sow's ear around.

There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions can only
affect ones own profits, the government really has no need to be involved.
But where bad decisions can affect the whole economy, the government has a
genuine interest to be involved.

Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud
involved.

Generally, bankruptcy proceedings can separate a loser from his losses.
Those who own a losing business get to lose their business that way.
That may well be an adequate remedy for situations like this. But if
more is needed, maybe jail time for the bad actors?

You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial
decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

I did suspect this housing mess needs to have some people put in jail. But
the laws may not have made it sufficiently clear to do it this time around.
To the extent that is so, the laws need to change.

What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

| | | As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| | | Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| | | when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| | | also do what they do best.
| |
| | As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
| | it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
| | hand in the economies.
| |
| | It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics
| | and silly to think they should (not).
|
| How the governments in places like China are managing their economy compared
| to the USA is a big contrast. It puts the USA in a weak position.
|
| Also true, but irrelevant.

You sure to consider a lot of things to be irrelevant.

They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in
this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

--
Keith

In article ,
says...

VWWall wrote:


By "directly" I meant having a register capable of holding the address
of 4GB memory. There have been "segmented" memory programs since Bill
Gates said 940KB was plenty for anyone.


That was 640 kB.

Actually, it was 704K, but no one told Billy. ;-)

--
Keith

In article 98eb2dcf-7250-4f9f-a08c-
,
says...
On Jun 23, 8:51*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland
wrote:

There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with
something.
As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the
drilling for oil. *I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants
(under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular
inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ...
and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power
demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones
powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC
feeders). *I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are
not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ...
desert spaces should be OK). *I'm in favor of building wind farms.

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for
limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about
700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency
for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and
nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not
counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it.
Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it,
might not be such a bad idea...



My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to
see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that
has been naturally sequestered. *Also, known oil reserves won't last
for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure
is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at
the rate we are growing in our use).

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level
of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
except for plants who would say "Yum!"



To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas,
then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that
much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even
criminal governments who
are the current suppliers.

It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's
payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're
at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of
terror.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can
be done.

It's easy to say that the next generation will meet their
obligations. The Congress has been doing just that with Social
Security for two generations already.

--
Keith

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:45:15 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

How about nukes instead?

Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so
much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators
just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

Biting hand Gawd, this is killing me...

Cheers,
Paul

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:45:15 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

How about nukes instead?

Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so
much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators
just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

Biting hand Gawd, this is killing me...

You succeed rather well at your wishes. You are indeed a fool.


--
Keith

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:49:43 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:45:15 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing
mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving
lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

How about nukes instead?

Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so
much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators
just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

Biting hand Gawd, this is killing me...

You succeed rather well at your wishes. You are indeed a fool.

So, what about nukes? What is it that you're asking? I'll check back
with you after I finish watching Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.

Cheers,
Paul

In article , (Paul M. Eldridge) writes:
| On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| In article , (Paul M. Eldridge) writes:
| | On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
| |
| | Hi Dan,
| |
| | Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture
| | would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy
| | saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or
| | 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.
|
| I get kind of confused when several variables change at once.
| Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago
| and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the
| 60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both
| assumptions happen to reflect reality. How does my energy usage
| today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white
| tubes?
|
|
| Hi Dan,
|
| If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original
| ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.
|
|
| | In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO
| | (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a
| | standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens
| | from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI)
| | at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic
| | ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.
|
| Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher
| efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?
|
|
| You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic
| ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps.

Can you recommend a specific part? Mine are actually single tube fixtures
so this would be for one F96T12 tube. I'm assuming that energy saving
magnetic ballasts save energy by putting out less heat rather than, say,
by not driving the tube as hard. Is there any downside at all to using them?

| However, if
| you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an
| electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes;

I tried electronic ballasts at one point but they generated too much
RFI (interfering with, IIRC, low-band VHF television and AM radio)
and they also caused problems for my X10 (power line control) devices.
Based on more recent experience with neighbors' CFLs and even the
"electronic transformer" on a reading lamp I'm a little skeptical
about the value of the FCC label. Can I do anything useful with
T8 tubes and magnetic ballasts?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

On 25 Jun 2008 03:08:28 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:

In article , (Paul M. Eldridge) writes:
| On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic
| ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps.

Can you recommend a specific part? Mine are actually single tube fixtures
so this would be for one F96T12 tube. I'm assuming that energy saving
magnetic ballasts save energy by putting out less heat rather than, say,
by not driving the tube as hard. Is there any downside at all to using them?


Hi Dan,

There's really no downside as such, but not a whole lot of up either
given that with the exception of the limited watts saved all the other
limitations previously noted still apply. I'm afraid I can't
recommend a specific part because I use electronic ballasts
exclusively, but hopefully others in this group can offer their
recommendations.


| However, if
| you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an
| electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes;

I tried electronic ballasts at one point but they generated too much
RFI (interfering with, IIRC, low-band VHF television and AM radio)
and they also caused problems for my X10 (power line control) devices.
Based on more recent experience with neighbors' CFLs and even the
"electronic transformer" on a reading lamp I'm a little skeptical
about the value of the FCC label. Can I do anything useful with
T8 tubes and magnetic ballasts?

I haven't personally encountered any of the issues you mention and my
firm installed several hundred of these ballasts at a major defence
contractor, including their test labs where they use highly sensitive
bench equipment (FWIW, we use only Osram Sylvania's Quictronic
ballasts). I might suggest trying one out to see how it works, and if
you're not completely satisfied exchange it for an ES magnetic;
alternatively, give Sylvania a call at 1-800-LIGHTBULB and relay your
concerns to them directly prior to making your purchase. Good luck!

Cheers,
Paul

On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:

In article ,
says...

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
NYT *is* a certified fool.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:

In article ,
says...

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the
issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/bu...ef=environment

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
NYT *is* a certified fool.


Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
aren't always sure with the NYT.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote:

| There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions can only
| affect ones own profits, the government really has no need to be involved.
| But where bad decisions can affect the whole economy, the government has a
| genuine interest to be involved.
|
| Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud
| involved.

I draw the line where the decisions affect the public in general, the nation,
and the economy. For it to be a violation, there has to be regulations or
laws in place. There are lots of little lines to draw, and I don't have
all the answers. I just know that where thet are drawn now isn't good
enough.


| Generally, bankruptcy proceedings can separate a loser from his losses.
| Those who own a losing business get to lose their business that way.
| That may well be an adequate remedy for situations like this. But if
| more is needed, maybe jail time for the bad actors?
|
| You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial
| decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

See above. If the decision involves something that will have an impact
beyond just the deciders finances, or the finances of his company, then
it needs to be regulated/legislated. The specifics would depend on what
is involved. There are lots (thousands) of little areas that might be
subject to this.

What I'm proposing is the general idea. Specifics still need to be worked
out.


| I did suspect this housing mess needs to have some people put in jail. But
| the laws may not have made it sufficiently clear to do it this time around.
| To the extent that is so, the laws need to change.
|
| What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

I don't know, yet. If everything done by that executives that caused this
mess really is already illegal, then lets put the *******s in jail. If we
can't (now) then we need to explore why not and fix things so we can in
the future (and make sure they understand these changes).


| | | | As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| | | | Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| | | | when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| | | | also do what they do best.
| | |
| | | As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
| | | it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
| | | hand in the economies.
| | |
| | | It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics
| | | and silly to think they should (not).
| |
| | How the governments in places like China are managing their economy compared
| | to the USA is a big contrast. It puts the USA in a weak position.
| |
| | Also true, but irrelevant.
|
| You sure to consider a lot of things to be irrelevant.
|
| They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in
| this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

Well, for the original thread topic, yeah, China is irrelevant.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 24 Jun 2008 17:20:49 GMT, wrote:
|
|| Hi Phil,
||
|| Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
|| opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen?
|| ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
|| incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.
||
|| If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
|| MR16 are some of the best available.
||
|| See:
|| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5758.pdf
|
|5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of
|regular use (about 5 hours a day).
|
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life
| of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good
| (since our original conversation pertained to standard household
| incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light
| sources).

If the ordinary bulb ratings are only that (I really haven't looked in
ages, since I rarely need to buy them), then the numbers are different.
What I read in the referenced PDF was that these 5000 hour ratings is a
50% remaining rate. That's NOT what I see for regular incandescent
bulbs at 750 hours. Oddly enough, the bulbs that seem to burn out the
most are the ones in various table lamps subject to lots of vibration.
All the bulbs in all the hanging lamps and all the ceiling cans have not
burned out in the 5 years I've been in this house (that my mother had
built and my father now owns). Most of them are on all evening.


| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents
| have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you
| indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in
| your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I
| presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit
my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of
every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that
the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are
therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen
and shop).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the
| generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg
| into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg
| contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure
| landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas
| the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately
| pollutes our air, land and water.

But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house.

Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is
one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved.

That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every
incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal
burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability
(provided it is done in the right way).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the
NYT *is* a certified fool.
Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you
aren't always sure with the NYT.

More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT
are much more subtle.

On 25 Jun 2008 07:10:53 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the
| generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg
| into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg
| contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure
| landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas
| the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately
| pollutes our air, land and water.

But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house.

I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one
crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it
hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the
prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen
source may be a better option.

Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is
one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved.

Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to
trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide.
You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every
incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal
burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability
(provided it is done in the right way).

I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps
use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL
counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated
by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will
be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change
that, at least not overnight.

With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my
sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just
don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If
utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these
alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous
investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we
all know who that is, right?

Cheers,
Paul

On 25 Jun 2008 07:05:28 GMT, wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 24 Jun 2008 17:20:49 GMT, wrote:
|
|| Hi Phil,
||
|| Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
|| opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen?
|| ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
|| incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.
||
|| If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
|| MR16 are some of the best available.
||
|| See:
|| http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/...pdf/p-5758.pdf
|
|5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of
|regular use (about 5 hours a day).
|
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life
| of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good
| (since our original conversation pertained to standard household
| incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light
| sources).

If the ordinary bulb ratings are only that (I really haven't looked in
ages, since I rarely need to buy them), then the numbers are different.
What I read in the referenced PDF was that these 5000 hour ratings is a
50% remaining rate. That's NOT what I see for regular incandescent
bulbs at 750 hours. Oddly enough, the bulbs that seem to burn out the
most are the ones in various table lamps subject to lots of vibration.
All the bulbs in all the hanging lamps and all the ceiling cans have not
burned out in the 5 years I've been in this house (that my mother had
built and my father now owns). Most of them are on all evening.

Hi Phil,

As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is
based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide
standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:

http://www.sylvania.com/content/disp...x?id=003694068


| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents
| have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you
| indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in
| your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I
| presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit
my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of
every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that
the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are
therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen
and shop).


Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube
fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same
reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I
understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent
lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and
TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's
probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if
you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some
future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a
precaution.

Cheers,
Paul

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is
| based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide
| standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:
|
| http://www.sylvania.com/content/disp...x?id=003694068

Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs
last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I
did not assume something like the 50% basis.


|| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents
|| have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you
|| indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in
|| your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I
|| presume we can rule out metal halide as well.
|
|That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit
|my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of
|every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that
|the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are
|therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen
|and shop).
|
|
| Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube
| fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same
| reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I
| understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

It might be absolute. I'm actually undecided at the moment. This applies
to the design of my new home, which I have not timeline, yet, for building.
I'm refusing to put fluorescent fixtures into that design unless and until
I see some solid proof I should not be concerned with it.


| If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent
| lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and
| TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's
| probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if
| you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some
| future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a
| precaution.

My primary concern is an aspect of light quality that has nothing to do with
the CRI rating. As I understand it, CRI refers to the balancing of color in
the spectrum within the confines of how human eyes perceive it so the color
of illuminated objects looks correct or natural. My concern is more with the
way the spectrum affects contrast edges given that human eyes, and worse when
corrective or magnifying lenses are involved, do not focus the light spectrum
at a single point. Under a single visible wavelength, contrast edges always
look as sharp as the viewer can see them. Under a broad continuous spectrum
of white light, the edges will be slightly blurred, but will be uniform. But,
under a the harsh light of 3 distinct single wavelengths, that edge will look
like 3 distinct colored edges. That's the worse situation. Fluorescent light
corrects this poorly because its spectrum has "hills and valleys" despite the
color balance being a reasonable white. LED has the same issue but I think
there may be more hope to correct this for LED than for FL (since FL has been
around for so long and this hasn't been fixed). Some HID has less of an issue
with it. MV and MH are bad, but HPS seems to be OK (though it has very poor
color in the eye of many).

As for stocking up, I'm not worried. There will be a black market. There
always is. It's not like they are going to put that much effort into this.
It's not like pirating software/music/movies.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
| On 25 Jun 2008 07:10:53 GMT, wrote:
|
|In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
|
|| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the
|| generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg
|| into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg
|| contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure
|| landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas
|| the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately
|| pollutes our air, land and water.
|
|But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house.
|
| I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one
| crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it
| hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the
| prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen
| source may be a better option.
|
|Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is
|one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved.
|
| Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to
| trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide.
| You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

If I get past the Hg issue, I will put FL in some places but not in others.
That is, unless the address the light quality issue that I am concerned
about. Areas where I will be working for more than 20 minutes at a time
will have incandescent/halogen lights.


|That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every
|incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal
|burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability
|(provided it is done in the right way).
|
| I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps
| use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL
| counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated
| by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will
| be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change
| that, at least not overnight.

If they come up with suitable replacements, I'm fine with using them.
Maybe the Hg issue won't be much of one. I'm considering the fact that
so far I have never broken an FL light outside of some intentional acts
when I was a teenager. The spiral of CFLs seems to be a stronger glass
than the long tubes, as well.

FYI, I also intend to avoid the E26 screw base in as many places as I can.


| With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my
| sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just
| don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If
| utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these
| alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous
| investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we
| all know who that is, right?

We have a broad spectrum of people out there that range from wanting to have
the lowest price at everyone else's expense, to those willing to pay triple
and more to ensure they impact no one else. It will be interesting to watch.

I say "tax it". If you don't want certain things done and can show a good
cause why (it impacts others in some way), then tax it. That comes down to
electrical usage. Raise the tax on the _generation_ of electrical power that
is made from coal. Or just tax the measured pollution produced (leaves open
the possibility of developing better cleaning processes). I'm not concerned
with the banning of A19/E26 white incandescent bulbs because there are plenty
of alternatives. The yellow insect bulbs can be used for reptile warming.
I can go with new fixtures that use bi-pin halogens, especially at low voltage.

If I were caught under the silliness of California's law that requires a
certain amount of lighting be the high efficacy type, and focuses on the
kitchen, where I need good quality task lighting the most (and generally
for no more than an hour or two a day, except on 2 or 3 holidays a year),
then you will see HPS lights (unused) dominating the kitchen while I still
used localized halogen task lighting there.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |