In article ,
"Clot" wrote:

Strangely, whilst I can see your reply, my original message
has not appeared for me!

This was a not-so-rare occurrence in The Good Old Daystm of the
dial-up BBS (Bulletin Board System) and FidoNet - a virtual predecessor
to the internet we now take for granted.

It was not uncommon for a reply to arrive on a reader's computer BEFORE
the original message.

This is why quoting became a convention and persists to this day.

It was the fact that, during the BBS days, the messages were moved
around the country (and, later, the world) using dial-up LONG DISTANCE
calls - all paid for out of the pocket of the hobbyist BBS "SysOp"
(System Operator).

It was this fact that made EDITING ones quotes imperative and an
absolute requirement. Bandwidth was expensive to the BBS operator who
often provided access to these services for FREE. They paid the monthly
fee for a dedicated, standalone phone line. Some even had multiple
phone lines. In its heyday, MacNet Omaha (1:285/14) had TWO lines. It
was an expensive hobby, indeed, while raising three young daughters.
Mrs. MacWidow was MORE than patient during the seven years it operated.
--

JR

In article
,
" wrote:

the high efficeny sodium and other lamps take a few minutes
to come to full briteness.

That doesn't matter.

by the time the sensor tripped light on vehicle would of passed.

That doesn't matter.

plus theres liability issues if lamps fail for some reason....

It STILL doesn't matter.

All that matters is that we FEEL GOOD just doing something - anything -
to address the "crisis" of "wasted" energy and the koff, hack global
warming it causes.

When all the efforts toward conservation have been made, although that
will never happen in the minds of too many, it still won't be enough to
some. To the environmentalist extremist, the only truly good world is
one where mankind no longer exists. Until that day, they won't be
happy. Of course, they'll be gone, too, so it's moot point.

A growing society will consume increasing amounts of energy. There is
NO WAY around that fact.

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone. There is no
way around THAT fact.

Take your pick.
--
JR

Big snip

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone. There is no
way around THAT fact.


I'm not sure that I can understand this comment. Why not just replacement?
Or, perhaps a minor reduction in population?

In article ,
"Clot" wrote:

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone.

I'm not sure that I can understand this comment.

I can't help you there, sorry.

Why not just replacement?
Or, perhaps a minor reduction in population?

Zero population growth or, worse, "negative growth" (declining, overall
population) is the harbinger of the collapse of a society. It is
historically well documented.
--

JR

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:31:18 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:21:47 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

A long time ago, SOME of us learned that constantly turning-on and
turning-off a lamp was usually more expensive than leaving it on. This
hasn't changed.


This is bull****. Turning on and off an incadescent light does not
use more energy, and if the off period is more than a few seconds,
energy will be saved.

Worse than that. AC incandescent lamps acturally turn on and off
60 times a second. :-)

In article ,
Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

the high efficeny sodium and other lamps take a few minutes
to come to full briteness.

That doesn't matter.

by the time the sensor tripped light on vehicle would of passed.

That doesn't matter.

plus theres liability issues if lamps fail for some reason....

It STILL doesn't matter.

All that matters is that we FEEL GOOD just doing something - anything -
to address the "crisis" of "wasted" energy and the koff, hack global
warming it causes.

When all the efforts toward conservation have been made, although that
will never happen in the minds of too many, it still won't be enough to
some. To the environmentalist extremist, the only truly good world is
one where mankind no longer exists. Until that day, they won't be
happy. Of course, they'll be gone, too, so it's moot point.

A growing society will consume increasing amounts of energy. There is
NO WAY around that fact.

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone. There is no
way around THAT fact.

Take your pick.

I pick massive catastrophe, wiping out at least 99.99 % of mankind, and
100% of all technology developed in the last 150 years.

Then mankind, and society (whatever the hell that is) can start growing
and thriving again.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

the high efficeny sodium and other lamps take a few minutes
to come to full briteness.
That doesn't matter.

by the time the sensor tripped light on vehicle would of passed.
That doesn't matter.

plus theres liability issues if lamps fail for some reason....
It STILL doesn't matter.

All that matters is that we FEEL GOOD just doing something - anything -
to address the "crisis" of "wasted" energy and the koff, hack global
warming it causes.

When all the efforts toward conservation have been made, although that
will never happen in the minds of too many, it still won't be enough to
some. To the environmentalist extremist, the only truly good world is
one where mankind no longer exists. Until that day, they won't be
happy. Of course, they'll be gone, too, so it's moot point.

A growing society will consume increasing amounts of energy. There is
NO WAY around that fact.

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone. There is no
way around THAT fact.

Take your pick.

I pick massive catastrophe, wiping out at least 99.99 % of mankind, and
100% of all technology developed in the last 150 years.

Then mankind, and society (whatever the hell that is) can start growing
and thriving again.

Make that at least the last 6,000 years, and 50,000 years
before we get to the 3R's level again.

There's actually a theory that as a biological family grows
in population, they give lower units a better opportunity to
infect and reduce that population. The magic is to hit that
point where the parasite and host can both still survive
without killing each other. This is Darwin tree stuff,
bacteria, viruses etc. Mother nature seems to have a way of
pruning as needed. This PBS program was saying even though
we have a base tendency to kill each other off, the bugs
will do a much better job than we could have ever done on
our own. There's hope, our residue will probably build an
all new Darwinian tree and we can do this all over again ;-)

Ironically, conservation of energy is the basic rule for all
the Darwin tree stuff, survival of the fittest is really
survival of the energy efficient. Energy efficiency might
mean our survival in many ways.

-- larry/dallas

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone.
Take your pick.

I pick massive catastrophe, wiping out at least 99.99 % of mankind, and
100% of all technology developed in the last 150 years.

Take heart: The coronation -er- inauguration is only ten days away,
then we can get started.
--

JR

In article ,
StepfanKing wrote:

So you can see more of the street and not run pedestrians over. Lots of
drunks out at all hours stumbling around.

Let them drink themselves to death. I don't wanna be responsible for
running them down.

You're not alone. A motorist here stopped and called 911 to report that
he had just hit and apparently killed a pedestrian on the freeway.
Highway patrol came to investigate and determined that the guy had been
run over at least six times already.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:21:26 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 05:03:54 -0800 (PST), "
h
The real conclusion to be drawn is that someone who wants to
commit a crime will not be stopped by a light, but may move his crime
away from the light.

Which is yet another reason to keep as much as lit as possible.

Better would be to assure that your neighbors are not lit.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:33:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:31:18 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:21:47 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

A long time ago, SOME of us learned that constantly turning-on and
turning-off a lamp was usually more expensive than leaving it on. This
hasn't changed.


This is bull****. Turning on and off an incadescent light does not
use more energy, and if the off period is more than a few seconds,
energy will be saved.

Worse than that. AC incandescent lamps acturally turn on and off
60 times a second. :-)

It's 120 times a second (there's a zero-crossing after EACH
half-cycle), and power doesn't stay off very long. Probably not long
enough for the filament to cool and cause thermal stress.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:17:18 -0600, larry wrote:

wrote:
When you fly in and see all those parking lots lit up

The light illumniating the lot is doing its job

Waste light leaks and goes directly to the sky illuminating nothing.

Just thought I would point this out



why not use the same type camera system that changes traffic
signals when there are cars around. let the cameras turn
on the street lights where there is activity, and off after
an hour of no activity. they have a long view from pole top.


How would you feel about driving into a completely dark street?

most of our local lots now use 70 watt sodium bulbs, each
easily replaced at least ten 100 watt incandescent bulbs.
lots that were on timers until 2am switching 6000 watts
now use photocells to switch 420 watts dusk to dawn.

dallas made a substantial power cut just by replacing all
the traffic signal bulbs with snap in led panels. and cut
maintenance staff who's only job was continually replacing
burned out signal bulbs. some intersection controllers and
signals are now solar powered. all of the school zones are
solar powered, including the radio links that eliminated the
timing sync when they lost power. (no more school
zone flashing at 2am)

-- larry / dallas

"Gary H" wrote in message

How would you feel about driving into a completely dark street?


When it gets dark early, I do it every day. My car has headlights so I can
see. Yours probably has them too. Look for a switch.

Gary H wrote:


How would you feel about driving into a completely dark street?



we did that a lot about a year ago. it would take the city
or state months to replace miles of copper pulled out of the
conduit between the lights. the dark bridges across the
river were the only places folks seemed to care about.

crime- down here, storm windows are a good crime deterrent
since few houses have them.

-- larry/dallas

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:31:18 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:21:47 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

A long time ago, SOME of us learned that constantly turning-on and
turning-off a lamp was usually more expensive than leaving it on. This
hasn't changed.


This is bull****. Turning on and off an incadescent light does not
use more energy, and if the off period is more than a few seconds,
energy will be saved.

Worse than that. AC incandescent lamps acturally turn on and off
60 times a second. :-)

Right! In fact, there are no common electric light sources that use any
significant amount of energy when starting compared to their average
operating energy and that includes incandescent, halogen incandescent,
fluorescent, metal halide, high pressure sodium and LEDs. Any initial energy
pulse is far too brief to make any difference on anyone's electric bill.

Incandescent lamps are, of course, subjected to on/off cycles because of
alternating current; but incandescent flashing sign lamps get a double
dose -- from the power line and from the flashing device as well. But, lamp
manufacturers rate sign lamps for the same life whether they are steady
burning or flashing (3000 hours is a typical life rating).

TKM

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:38:44 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:33:19 -0500, wrote:


Worse than that. AC incandescent lamps acturally turn on and off
60 times a second. :-)

It's 120 times a second (there's a zero-crossing after EACH
half-cycle), and power doesn't stay off very long. Probably not long
enough for the filament to cool and cause thermal stress.

Your right. I am glad I was not taking a test. :-)

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article ,
"Clot" wrote:

A society that no longer grows will collapse and be gone.

I'm not sure that I can understand this comment.

I can't help you there, sorry.

Why not just replacement?
Or, perhaps a minor reduction in population?

Zero population growth or, worse, "negative growth" (declining,
overall population) is the harbinger of the collapse of a society.
It is historically well documented.

Interesting comment. I believe that France and Italy are experiencing static
populations and Europe as a whole has significantly lower population growth
than in the past. Japan, I believe is also experiencing an ageing
population. All of which are countries "that had their day" and therefore in
"relative decline". I do appreciate your comments, though the demise of
China, Egypt, Rome and Greece historically does not require more recent
dynasties to collapse either to a major extent or at all.