On Oct 17, 12:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:

You're imagining that...he said no such thing. *This is exactly what
he wrote:
"The very fact that an incandescent bulb produces so much heat (as
opposed to
light) from the electricity it consumes should be a hint as to why
such
bulbs are no longer such a great idea. *When we switched to CFLs our
electric bill took a dive. *Pay more for power vs. pay less for power,
hmmmm, tough call. "

Come on, you're not that stupid.

Wish I could return the compliment. ~

This whole paragraph is out of place, as
well as being wrong. *It was a *HEATER* that was needed here, so the whole
subject of light vs. heat was wrong. *The only thing that matters is heat.
They're using a light bulb not because it's inefficient, rather because it's
CHEAP. *It puts out *exactly* the same heat as any other 100W load, yet DGD
had to get his digs in at the (irrelevant) light output, and he was wrong..

You seem to have adopted SOMEONE ELSE'S THREAD as yours, and
determined what can and can't be discussed/mentioned. Of course
energy efficiency is relevant in any discussion of lighting, even
cantankerous discussions.

Robert Green's choice of words confused the issue, but DG's *thrust
was that CFLs cost less for the same amount of light. *They're more
efficient. *You'll spend less to light up the place. *Little argument
there, right?

But that's *WRONG*. *Heat is what was wanted. *Both are equally efficient at
producing heat. *The *light* argument was the confusing issue (it confused
you). *...and a red herring.

Was there a...how should I put this?...a 'train wreck' in your past?
You seem most adamant in keeping the discussion on rails of your
choosing. I suggest a moderated newsgroup, maybe start your own.

For the record, I'm not crazy about CFLs due to the mercury in them,
but there's little argument that they're a step in the right direction
regardless of anyone's take on politics.

I'm not crazy about them for many reasons. *In general, they suck and I won't
use them.

Besides the mercury, my beef with them is that in my experience they
don't come close to their rated life.

Communication is more than just taking every word
literally...especially in a newsgroup.

It's more than AGW 24/7, too.

Agreed. *Who brought up the subject?

That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.

Canard...now you're bringing up aeronautics...? Sheesh.

So fluorescent bulbs were a result of people trying to deal with
global warming? Most curious reworking of history, Sparky. It's an
energy thing. All the rest is sales.

Fluorescents were introduced back in the Trylon & Perisphere day when
global warming wasn't a catchphrase. As an aside, if I may reminisce
off-the-rails, a professor of building technology told the class that
high rise buildings wouldn't exist without fluorescent lights as they
wouldn't be able to cool the buildings if they were lit with
incandescents. A generalization, I'm sure, but it makes the point.

R

On Oct 18, 9:17*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:00*pm, "

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:

You're imagining that...he said no such thing. *This is exactly what
he wrote:
"The very fact that an incandescent bulb produces so much heat (as
opposed to
light) from the electricity it consumes should be a hint as to why
such
bulbs are no longer such a great idea. *When we switched to CFLs our
electric bill took a dive. *Pay more for power vs. pay less for power,
hmmmm, tough call. "

Come on, you're not that stupid.

Wish I could return the compliment. *~

This whole paragraph is out of place, as
well as being wrong. *It was a *HEATER* that was needed here, so the whole
subject of light vs. heat was wrong. *The only thing that matters is heat.
They're using a light bulb not because it's inefficient, rather because it's
CHEAP. *It puts out *exactly* the same heat as any other 100W load, yet DGD
had to get his digs in at the (irrelevant) light output, and he was wrong.

You seem to have adopted SOMEONE ELSE'S THREAD as yours, and
determined what can and can't be discussed/mentioned. *Of course
energy efficiency is relevant in any discussion of lighting, even
cantankerous discussions.

Robert Green's choice of words confused the issue, but DG's *thrust
was that CFLs cost less for the same amount of light. *They're more
efficient. *You'll spend less to light up the place. *Little argument
there, right?

But that's *WRONG*. *Heat is what was wanted. *Both are equally efficient at
producing heat. *The *light* argument was the confusing issue (it confused
you). *...and a red herring.

Was there a...how should I put this?...a 'train wreck' in your past?
You seem most adamant in keeping the discussion on rails of your
choosing. *I suggest a moderated newsgroup, maybe start your own.

For the record, I'm not crazy about CFLs due to the mercury in them,
but there's little argument that they're a step in the right direction
regardless of anyone's take on politics.

I'm not crazy about them for many reasons. *In general, they suck and I won't
use them.

Besides the mercury, my beef with them is that in my experience they
don't come close to their rated life.

Communication is more than just taking every word
literally...especially in a newsgroup.

It's more than AGW 24/7, too.

Agreed. *Who brought up the subject?

That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.

Canard...now you're bringing up aeronautics...? *Sheesh.

So fluorescent bulbs were a result of people trying to deal with
global warming? *Most curious reworking of history, Sparky. *It's an
energy thing. *All the rest is sales.

Fluorescents were introduced back in the Trylon & Perisphere day when
global warming wasn't a catchphrase. *As an aside, if I may reminisce
off-the-rails, a professor of building technology told the class that
high rise buildings wouldn't exist without fluorescent lights as they
wouldn't be able to cool the buildings if they were lit with
incandescents. *A generalization, I'm sure, but it makes the point.

R

In My experience, over many, many years, well-built fouorescent lamps
themselves have long lives. It is the ballast, for linear
fluorescents, and the electronics in the base of compact fluorescents
that give out first. I have had some compact fluorescents for 5
years, and some that only lasted 5 months. I have actually reused the
bulb portion of some compact flusorecents, as an experiment,
reconnecting the bulbs to other compact bases, and they have lasted
several years and are still going string. The LOA brand of CFL's I
would relegate to the trash bin, they used to be junk, I don't buy any
now so I can't comment n their current quality. Philips cfl's have
had excellent life, but they do cost more. Our local stores have been
selling CFL's in 6-packs for less than $6.00, but they are not a
nationally-recognized brand and I have no idea how long they will
last. .

On Oct 18, 7:34*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote:
DerbyDad03" wrote in message
news:0a384117-c5a1-4c53-a7d7-

stuff snipped since this side thread has drifted

(My favorite was always "Space Monkey Mafia" )

--
Bobby G.

What I love doing is pointing out to my "kids" (18 - 24) how many of
"their" songs are remakes of songs from my generation. I love pointing
out to them that many of the artists that they listen to fit into one
of 2 groups:

1 - They don't know how to write quality music so they remix the great
songs from my generation.
2 - They know how to write quality music, but they also recognize
quality writing when they see it and give tribute by remixing it.

You're more charitable than I am. *Remixing always equalled creative
bankruptcy to me, but I realize that's just a personal opinion. *

Every so often there is an exception. * * For the most part I agree
with you- but a couple years ago I stumbled over Israel "IZ"
Kamakawiwo'ole's rendition of Over the Rainbow. * * * * For most of my
life it was my opinion that the most beautiful song ever sung was Judy
Garland's 'Over the rainbow' -- Izzy edges her out of #1;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bFr...eature=related

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And let's not forget Manfred Mann's Earth Band's cover of
Springsteen's "Blinded By The Light".

Even The Boss jokes about the fact that it took somebody else doing
one of his songs - and discussing "feminine hygiene products" - to
get him a #1 hit.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:



That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.

Canard...now you're bringing up aeronautics...? Sheesh.

I thought that was a DUCK

So fluorescent bulbs were a result of people trying to deal with
global warming? Most curious reworking of history, Sparky. It's an
energy thing. All the rest is sales.

Fluorescents were introduced back in the Trylon & Perisphere day when
global warming wasn't a catchphrase. As an aside, if I may reminisce
off-the-rails, a professor of building technology told the class that
high rise buildings wouldn't exist without fluorescent lights as they
wouldn't be able to cool the buildings if they were lit with
incandescents. A generalization, I'm sure, but it makes the point.

R

On Oct 18, 1:00*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.

Canard...now you're bringing up aeronautics...? *Sheesh.

I thought that was a DUCK

Like a canape covers a cockpit...?

R

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

Our friend is using word games and appears to be claiming that somewhere off
camera, in a perfectly sealed box, in a perfectly theoretical world where
all energy radiators are perfect and there's no such thing as conversion
efficiency, all light and heat end up the same - as heat. He's claiming the
difference between the ratio of heat/light emitted does not matter because
the CFL's much greater light output would be converted back into heat when
it strikes the sides of the hypothetically perfect box.

The quote, precisely, was: "Nonsense. A 100W incandescent bulb will put out
exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W."

"Exactly the same" is a) true only in the most theoretical sense, b) true
only if you decide to use the words heat and light interchangeably and c)
perhaps not really true even then. What he may have meant is "eventually"
but "exactly" implies that they *emit* the same amount of heat
simultaneously. That's simply not true. While both may radiate 25 watts of
energy, they do it in very different forms.

In the much more rational and problematic world we live in, the CFL not only
puts out less heat when measured at the emitter, it will put out less heat
overall. In the real world all conversions from one form of energy to
another involve losses of some kind. If that wasn't so, we would have
totally safe CFL furnaces, converting light into heat without pesky direct
combustion of fuel or dangerous resistance heaters. That's as ridiculous as
claiming that going from electricity to light to heat is as efficient as
going straight from electricity to heat without an intermediate process.

The device that puts out more heat to begin with will put out more heat in
the final analysis because it will not experience any loss in the
reconversion of light to heat. "Exactly" would only be true in a weird sort
of Flatland, where CFL bulb heat would be the least of one's problems. In
the real world, a tungsten incandescent bulb outputs more heat than a CFL
bulb of the exact same wattage, even when used as a heater.

CFLs put out more visible light than incandescents do for the same input
current and they do it by converting more of the input energy into visible
light and not IR or radiated thermal energy. Any claim that the heat ouput
is equal can be easily sanity checked by looking the difference in light
output for the same wattage.

The device that doesn't have to convert twice - once from electricity to
light and then from light to heat HAS to be the more efficient one, making
statements that they are both equally efficient radiators of heat dubious at
best. If the claim is true, it's only true in a theoretical sense and
applies to a world where no one actually lives. In the real world, CFL's
emit far more light than heat, and IIRC it's on the order of 60 lumens per
watt compared to an incandescent's 15. IIRC, the CFL emits 30 BTUs for a
similar incandescent's 80.

LED 3.4 btu's/hour
Incand. 85.0 btu's/hour
CFL 30.0 btu's/hour

Source: http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

Less light = more heat - over twice as hot according to these figures.

So yes, if you want to be a clever lad with words and use the terms heat and
light interchangeably (except when you choose not to) AND you live in a
perfect theoretical world where conversion efficiencies are 100%, then you
can say that CFLs and incandescents both output the same amount of heat -
eventually. It's a good reminder that one needs to watch for "magical
thinking" and "creative expression" on Usenet every damn day.

--
Bobby G.

On Oct 18, 6:22*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:

Flatland,

Good book.

R

You still not thinking, son?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:59:35 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Well, I guess we know who's not thinking. I won't be too hard on you,
son.

You really should try it some time. Now go back and read the thread,
then
come back with your tail between your legs.

I'm waiting.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:53:21 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

More insulting, and no proof. I guess you don't have the facts on
your
side. So sad. You may have another try, if you wish.

No, it's a fact. You're apparently illiterate. Clare gets it right -
mostly.

Didn't think you would.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:52:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's pretty much my reasoning. However, the guy says I'm wrong. And
he's going to provide the evidence.

Evidence of what? That energy is not conserved?

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:11:08 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You still not thinking, son?

I'm thinking. You're not reading.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:11:30 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'm waiting.

....for a clue.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:22:48 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

Our friend is using word games and appears to be claiming that somewhere off
camera, in a perfectly sealed box, in a perfectly theoretical world where
all energy radiators are perfect and there's no such thing as conversion
efficiency, all light and heat end up the same - as heat. He's claiming the
difference between the ratio of heat/light emitted does not matter because
the CFL's much greater light output would be converted back into heat when
it strikes the sides of the hypothetically perfect box.

The quote, precisely, was: "Nonsense. A 100W incandescent bulb will put out
exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W."

"Exactly the same" is a) true only in the most theoretical sense, b) true
only if you decide to use the words heat and light interchangeably and c)
perhaps not really true even then. What he may have meant is "eventually"
but "exactly" implies that they *emit* the same amount of heat
simultaneously. That's simply not true. While both may radiate 25 watts of
energy, they do it in very different forms.

In the much more rational and problematic world we live in, the CFL not only
puts out less heat when measured at the emitter, it will put out less heat
overall. In the real world all conversions from one form of energy to
another involve losses of some kind. If that wasn't so, we would have
totally safe CFL furnaces, converting light into heat without pesky direct
combustion of fuel or dangerous resistance heaters. That's as ridiculous as
claiming that going from electricity to light to heat is as efficient as
going straight from electricity to heat without an intermediate process.

The device that puts out more heat to begin with will put out more heat in
the final analysis because it will not experience any loss in the
reconversion of light to heat. "Exactly" would only be true in a weird sort
of Flatland, where CFL bulb heat would be the least of one's problems. In
the real world, a tungsten incandescent bulb outputs more heat than a CFL
bulb of the exact same wattage, even when used as a heater.

CFLs put out more visible light than incandescents do for the same input
current and they do it by converting more of the input energy into visible
light and not IR or radiated thermal energy. Any claim that the heat ouput
is equal can be easily sanity checked by looking the difference in light
output for the same wattage.

The device that doesn't have to convert twice - once from electricity to
light and then from light to heat HAS to be the more efficient one, making
statements that they are both equally efficient radiators of heat dubious at
best. If the claim is true, it's only true in a theoretical sense and
applies to a world where no one actually lives. In the real world, CFL's
emit far more light than heat, and IIRC it's on the order of 60 lumens per
watt compared to an incandescent's 15. IIRC, the CFL emits 30 BTUs for a
similar incandescent's 80.

LED 3.4 btu's/hour
Incand. 85.0 btu's/hour
CFL 30.0 btu's/hour

Source: http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

Less light = more heat - over twice as hot according to these figures.

So yes, if you want to be a clever lad with words and use the terms heat and
light interchangeably (except when you choose not to) AND you live in a
perfect theoretical world where conversion efficiencies are 100%, then you
can say that CFLs and incandescents both output the same amount of heat -
eventually. It's a good reminder that one needs to watch for "magical
thinking" and "creative expression" on Usenet every damn day.
The only question is:
In the inefficiency of converting light energy to heat, what form does
the lost energy take???
If you can answer that one you aare all set.

My answer that it was very close to the same between the two types ,
rather than saying it was identical, is because I admit there is a
possibilty that a very small amount of the energy emitted by the bulb
might turn into something other than heat and light - and that the
light might not all return to heat - I'm not a Physicist.
Stormy says 100%. Not sure he's a phyisicist either.

You say there is an appreciable difference. You and stormy are both
adament that you are right and the other is wrong. Are you a
physicist? Can you explain where the energy that does not become heat
goes? If you can't, I'll have to lean to agreeing with Stormy -
because the FACT is energy cannot be destroyed. It is just converted,
at 100% efficiency, into another form of energy.

On Oct 18, 10:31*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:22:48 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

Our friend is using word games and appears to be claiming that somewhere off
camera, in a perfectly sealed box, in a perfectly theoretical world where
all energy radiators are perfect and there's no such thing as conversion
efficiency, all light and heat end up the same - as heat. *He's claiming the
difference between the ratio of heat/light emitted does not matter because
the CFL's much greater light output would be converted back into heat when
it strikes the sides of the hypothetically perfect box.

The quote, precisely, was: "Nonsense. *A 100W incandescent bulb will put out
exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W."

"Exactly the same" is a) true only in the most theoretical sense, b) true
only if you decide to use the words heat and light interchangeably and c)
perhaps not really true even then. What he may have meant is "eventually"
but "exactly" implies that they *emit* the same amount of heat
simultaneously. *That's simply not true. *While both may radiate 25 watts of
energy, they do it in very different forms.

In the much more rational and problematic world we live in, the CFL not only
puts out less heat when measured at the emitter, it will put out less heat
overall. *In the real world all conversions from one form of energy to
another involve losses of some kind. *If that wasn't so, we would have
totally safe CFL furnaces, converting light into heat without pesky direct
combustion of fuel or dangerous resistance heaters. *That's as ridiculous as
claiming that going from electricity to light to heat is as efficient as
going straight from electricity to heat without an intermediate process.

The device that puts out more heat to begin with will put out more heat in
the final analysis because it will not experience any loss in the
reconversion of light to heat. *"Exactly" would only be true in a weird sort
of Flatland, where CFL bulb heat would be the least of one's problems. *In
the real world, a tungsten incandescent bulb outputs more heat than a CFL
bulb of the exact same wattage, even when used as a heater.

CFLs put out more visible light than incandescents do for the same input
current and they do it by converting more of the input energy into visible
light and not IR or radiated thermal energy. *Any claim that the heat ouput
is equal can be easily sanity checked by looking the difference in light
output for the same wattage.

The device that doesn't have to convert twice - once from electricity to
light and then from light to heat HAS to be the more efficient one, making
statements that they are both equally efficient radiators of heat dubious at
best. *If the claim is true, it's only true in a theoretical sense and
applies to a world where no one actually lives. *In the real world, CFL's
emit far more light than heat, and IIRC it's on the order of 60 lumens per
watt compared to an incandescent's 15. *IIRC, the CFL emits 30 BTUs for a
similar incandescent's 80.

LED * * * * * 3.4 btu's/hour
Incand. * * 85.0 btu's/hour
CFL * * * * 30.0 btu's/hour

Source:http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

Less light = more heat *- over twice as hot according to these figures.

So yes, if you want to be a clever lad with words and use the terms heat and
light interchangeably (except when you choose not to) AND you live in a
perfect theoretical world where conversion efficiencies are 100%, then you
can say that CFLs and incandescents both output the same amount of heat -
eventually. *It's a good reminder that one needs to watch for "magical
thinking" and "creative expression" on Usenet every damn day.

*The only question is:
In the inefficiency of converting light energy to heat, what form does
the lost energy take???
If you can answer that one you aare all set.

My answer that it was very close to the same between the two types ,
rather than saying it was identical, is because I admit there is a
possibilty that a very small amount of the energy emitted by the bulb
might turn into something other than heat and light - and that the
light might not all return to heat - I'm not a Physicist.
Stormy says 100%. Not sure he's a phyisicist either.

You say there is an appreciable difference. You and stormy are both
adament that you are right and the other is wrong. Are you a
physicist? Can you explain where the energy that does not become heat
goes? If you can't, I'll have to lean to agreeing with Stormy -
because the FACT is energy cannot be destroyed. It is just converted,
at 100% efficiency, into another form of energy.

Well, now we're well into the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-
a-pin territory. While you're asking for the calcs, make sure that
they differentiate between heat from conduction, convection and
radiation, allow for differing emissivities, and, while we're at it,
can we nail down what dark matter is? Thanks!

Here's a thought - why don't you cross-post this to a physics
newsgroup and a couple of engineering ones? That should be
entertaining.

R

I ought to have thought of that. Thank you.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 10/17/2010 10:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Do they "sound" black? If Italian helecopters go "wop, wop, wop"
what
do black helecopters sound like?


"Yo, Yo, Yo" silly man.

TDD

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 17, 12:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:

You're imagining that...he said no such thing. *This is exactly what
he wrote:
"The very fact that an incandescent bulb produces so much heat (as
opposed to
light) from the electricity it consumes should be a hint as to why
such
bulbs are no longer such a great idea. *When we switched to CFLs our
electric bill took a dive. *Pay more for power vs. pay less for power,
hmmmm, tough call. "

Come on, you're not that stupid.

Wish I could return the compliment. ~

Well, I can be corrected.

This whole paragraph is out of place, as
well as being wrong. *It was a *HEATER* that was needed here, so the whole
subject of light vs. heat was wrong. *The only thing that matters is heat.
They're using a light bulb not because it's inefficient, rather because it's
CHEAP. *It puts out *exactly* the same heat as any other 100W load, yet DGD
had to get his digs in at the (irrelevant) light output, and he was wrong.

You seem to have adopted SOMEONE ELSE'S THREAD as yours, and
determined what can and can't be discussed/mentioned. Of course
energy efficiency is relevant in any discussion of lighting, even
cantankerous discussions.

"Someone else's thread?" I didn't realize that there was thread "ownership"
on the Usenet. No, you simply can't read.

Robert Green's choice of words confused the issue, but DG's *thrust
was that CFLs cost less for the same amount of light. *They're more
efficient. *You'll spend less to light up the place. *Little argument
there, right?

But that's *WRONG*. *Heat is what was wanted. *Both are equally efficient at
producing heat. *The *light* argument was the confusing issue (it confused
you). *...and a red herring.

Was there a...how should I put this?...a 'train wreck' in your past?
You seem most adamant in keeping the discussion on rails of your
choosing. I suggest a moderated newsgroup, maybe start your own.

No, It may look like a train wreck to you, but the fact is that you simply
can't follow a train of thought. Illiterates will have that problem.

For the record, I'm not crazy about CFLs due to the mercury in them,
but there's little argument that they're a step in the right direction
regardless of anyone's take on politics.

I'm not crazy about them for many reasons. *In general, they suck and I won't
use them.

Besides the mercury, my beef with them is that in my experience they
don't come close to their rated life.

I don't like the light, the slow start, limited temperature range, or anything
about them. I don't mind tube fluorescents, in their place, but CFLs are a
total waste.

Communication is more than just taking every word
literally...especially in a newsgroup.

It's more than AGW 24/7, too.

Agreed. *Who brought up the subject?

That's the whole thrust behind CFLs - the reason DGD brought the canard into
the discussion.

Canard...now you're bringing up aeronautics...? Sheesh.

I did think you were somewhat intelligent. Correction accepted.

So fluorescent bulbs were a result of people trying to deal with
global warming? Most curious reworking of history, Sparky. It's an
energy thing. All the rest is sales.

CFLs, the universal answer. Do pay attention.

Fluorescents were introduced back in the Trylon & Perisphere day when
global warming wasn't a catchphrase. As an aside, if I may reminisce
off-the-rails, a professor of building technology told the class that
high rise buildings wouldn't exist without fluorescent lights as they
wouldn't be able to cool the buildings if they were lit with
incandescents. A generalization, I'm sure, but it makes the point.

Clueless.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:31:57 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:22:48 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

Our friend is using word games and appears to be claiming that somewhere off
camera, in a perfectly sealed box, in a perfectly theoretical world where
all energy radiators are perfect and there's no such thing as conversion
efficiency, all light and heat end up the same - as heat. He's claiming the
difference between the ratio of heat/light emitted does not matter because
the CFL's much greater light output would be converted back into heat when
it strikes the sides of the hypothetically perfect box.

The quote, precisely, was: "Nonsense. A 100W incandescent bulb will put out
exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W."

"Exactly the same" is a) true only in the most theoretical sense, b) true
only if you decide to use the words heat and light interchangeably and c)
perhaps not really true even then. What he may have meant is "eventually"
but "exactly" implies that they *emit* the same amount of heat
simultaneously. That's simply not true. While both may radiate 25 watts of
energy, they do it in very different forms.

In the much more rational and problematic world we live in, the CFL not only
puts out less heat when measured at the emitter, it will put out less heat
overall. In the real world all conversions from one form of energy to
another involve losses of some kind. If that wasn't so, we would have
totally safe CFL furnaces, converting light into heat without pesky direct
combustion of fuel or dangerous resistance heaters. That's as ridiculous as
claiming that going from electricity to light to heat is as efficient as
going straight from electricity to heat without an intermediate process.

The device that puts out more heat to begin with will put out more heat in
the final analysis because it will not experience any loss in the
reconversion of light to heat. "Exactly" would only be true in a weird sort
of Flatland, where CFL bulb heat would be the least of one's problems. In
the real world, a tungsten incandescent bulb outputs more heat than a CFL
bulb of the exact same wattage, even when used as a heater.

CFLs put out more visible light than incandescents do for the same input
current and they do it by converting more of the input energy into visible
light and not IR or radiated thermal energy. Any claim that the heat ouput
is equal can be easily sanity checked by looking the difference in light
output for the same wattage.

The device that doesn't have to convert twice - once from electricity to
light and then from light to heat HAS to be the more efficient one, making
statements that they are both equally efficient radiators of heat dubious at
best. If the claim is true, it's only true in a theoretical sense and
applies to a world where no one actually lives. In the real world, CFL's
emit far more light than heat, and IIRC it's on the order of 60 lumens per
watt compared to an incandescent's 15. IIRC, the CFL emits 30 BTUs for a
similar incandescent's 80.

LED 3.4 btu's/hour
Incand. 85.0 btu's/hour
CFL 30.0 btu's/hour

Source: http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

Less light = more heat - over twice as hot according to these figures.

So yes, if you want to be a clever lad with words and use the terms heat and
light interchangeably (except when you choose not to) AND you live in a
perfect theoretical world where conversion efficiencies are 100%, then you
can say that CFLs and incandescents both output the same amount of heat -
eventually. It's a good reminder that one needs to watch for "magical
thinking" and "creative expression" on Usenet every damn day.
The only question is:
In the inefficiency of converting light energy to heat, what form does
the lost energy take???

There is none.

If you can answer that one you aare all set.

My answer that it was very close to the same between the two types ,
rather than saying it was identical, is because I admit there is a
possibilty that a very small amount of the energy emitted by the bulb
might turn into something other than heat and light - and that the
light might not all return to heat - I'm not a Physicist.
Stormy says 100%. Not sure he's a phyisicist either.

Electrical engineer.

You say there is an appreciable difference. You and stormy are both
adament that you are right and the other is wrong. Are you a
physicist? Can you explain where the energy that does not become heat
goes? If you can't, I'll have to lean to agreeing with Stormy -
because the FACT is energy cannot be destroyed. It is just converted,
at 100% efficiency, into another form of energy.

Heat.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 18, 10:31 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:22:48 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

Our friend is using word games and appears to be claiming that somewhere
off
camera, in a perfectly sealed box, in a perfectly theoretical world where
all energy radiators are perfect and there's no such thing as conversion
efficiency, all light and heat end up the same - as heat. He's claiming
the
difference between the ratio of heat/light emitted does not matter
because
the CFL's much greater light output would be converted back into heat
when
it strikes the sides of the hypothetically perfect box.

The quote, precisely, was: "Nonsense. A 100W incandescent bulb will put
out
exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W."

"Exactly the same" is a) true only in the most theoretical sense, b) true
only if you decide to use the words heat and light interchangeably and c)
perhaps not really true even then. What he may have meant is "eventually"
but "exactly" implies that they *emit* the same amount of heat
simultaneously. That's simply not true. While both may radiate 25 watts
of
energy, they do it in very different forms.

In the much more rational and problematic world we live in, the CFL not
only
puts out less heat when measured at the emitter, it will put out less
heat
overall. In the real world all conversions from one form of energy to
another involve losses of some kind. If that wasn't so, we would have
totally safe CFL furnaces, converting light into heat without pesky
direct
combustion of fuel or dangerous resistance heaters. That's as ridiculous
as
claiming that going from electricity to light to heat is as efficient as
going straight from electricity to heat without an intermediate process.

The device that puts out more heat to begin with will put out more heat
in
the final analysis because it will not experience any loss in the
reconversion of light to heat. "Exactly" would only be true in a weird
sort
of Flatland, where CFL bulb heat would be the least of one's problems. In
the real world, a tungsten incandescent bulb outputs more heat than a CFL
bulb of the exact same wattage, even when used as a heater.

CFLs put out more visible light than incandescents do for the same input
current and they do it by converting more of the input energy into
visible
light and not IR or radiated thermal energy. Any claim that the heat
ouput
is equal can be easily sanity checked by looking the difference in light
output for the same wattage.

The device that doesn't have to convert twice - once from electricity to
light and then from light to heat HAS to be the more efficient one,
making
statements that they are both equally efficient radiators of heat dubious
at
best. If the claim is true, it's only true in a theoretical sense and
applies to a world where no one actually lives. In the real world, CFL's
emit far more light than heat, and IIRC it's on the order of 60 lumens
per
watt compared to an incandescent's 15. IIRC, the CFL emits 30 BTUs for a
similar incandescent's 80.

LED 3.4 btu's/hour
Incand. 85.0 btu's/hour
CFL 30.0 btu's/hour

Source:http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

Less light = more heat - over twice as hot according to these figures.

So yes, if you want to be a clever lad with words and use the terms heat
and
light interchangeably (except when you choose not to) AND you live in a
perfect theoretical world where conversion efficiencies are 100%, then
you
can say that CFLs and incandescents both output the same amount of heat -
eventually. It's a good reminder that one needs to watch for "magical
thinking" and "creative expression" on Usenet every damn day.

The only question is:
In the inefficiency of converting light energy to heat, what form does
the lost energy take???
If you can answer that one you aare all set.

My answer that it was very close to the same between the two types ,
rather than saying it was identical, is because I admit there is a
possibilty that a very small amount of the energy emitted by the bulb
might turn into something other than heat and light - and that the
light might not all return to heat - I'm not a Physicist.
Stormy says 100%. Not sure he's a phyisicist either.

You say there is an appreciable difference. You and stormy are both
adament that you are right and the other is wrong. Are you a
physicist? Can you explain where the energy that does not become heat
goes? If you can't, I'll have to lean to agreeing with Stormy -
because the FACT is energy cannot be destroyed. It is just converted,
at 100% efficiency, into another form of energy.

Well, now we're well into the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-
a-pin territory. While you're asking for the calcs, make sure that
they differentiate between heat from conduction, convection and
radiation, allow for differing emissivities, and, while we're at it,
can we nail down what dark matter is? Thanks!

Here's a thought - why don't you cross-post this to a physics
newsgroup and a couple of engineering ones? That should be
entertaining.

As you imply, the discussion at that level is largely irrelevant to the
concerns of AHR which is why I took exception to the purely theoretical
feldercarb about them being exactly efficient radiators of heat and light.

Things to ponder:

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then where did the energy from
the Big Bang come from?

Why is the way the universe is expanding not quite matching up with the
theories, aka Dark Matter, Darth Vader's second cousin on his father's side.

Why doesn't a light bulb last forever? Are there processes other than the
generation of light absorbing energy?

Could the energy entering it be expended in not just heat but in physical
changes to the components?

Physicists have already created matter from energy so the rules get very
fuzzy the more theoretical you get:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1363

Why do things yellow and turn brittle under very bright light? Could that
energy be converted not just into heat but into chemical changes of the
material it strikes?

How do plants create biomass from sunlight?

Don't CFLs create RFI which will pass right through the box?

What would happen if you lowered (inside a waterproof container, for all you
wiseguys!) a tungsten bulb and a CFL of equal wattage into two calorimeters?
Would they both raise the temperature of the water an equal amount? All
interesting questions - for a theoretical physics group.

As you point out, if I came to AHR to read about angelic pin dancing it
would have been a far more entertaining discussion, but as it was written is
was wrong. At least if you believe in the common usage of the words "put
out, exactly, heat and light" He meant "eventually" - a word that has a
pretty clear meaning which isn't exactly "exactly." (-"

--
Bobby G.

"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

--
Bobby G.
Old enough to join AARP - for a while now

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:58:08 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:



Things to ponder:

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then where did the energy from
the Big Bang come from?

You are assuming it did occur and that there was nothing previously
existing, energy-wise.

Why is the way the universe is expanding not quite matching up with the
theories, aka Dark Matter, Darth Vader's second cousin on his father's side.

You are assuming those theories are sound
Why doesn't a light bulb last forever? Are there processes other than the
generation of light absorbing energy?

A light bulb doesn't last forever because the matter in the filament
is slowly evaporated off, or the filament eventually fatigues and
breaks. Nothing to do with making or destroying energy, and the energy
just makes different wavelengths of light (heat).

Could the energy entering it be expended in not just heat but in physical
changes to the components?

No. The energy of heat can speed up a reaction, but it cannot cause
one, in that the energy is used to change something to something else
without adding something more. Now fission might bend the rules.

Physicists have already created matter from energy so the rules get very
fuzzy the more theoretical you get:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1363

Why do things yellow and turn brittle under very bright light? Could that
energy be converted not just into heat but into chemical changes of the
material it strikes?

How do plants create biomass from sunlight?

That is energy storage

Don't CFLs create RFI which will pass right through the box?

Depends what the box is made of. A metalic box acts as a faraday cage.

What would happen if you lowered (inside a waterproof container, for all you
wiseguys!) a tungsten bulb and a CFL of equal wattage into two calorimeters?
Would they both raise the temperature of the water an equal amount? All
interesting questions - for a theoretical physics group.

As you point out, if I came to AHR to read about angelic pin dancing it
would have been a far more entertaining discussion, but as it was written is
was wrong. At least if you believe in the common usage of the words "put
out, exactly, heat and light" He meant "eventually" - a word that has a
pretty clear meaning which isn't exactly "exactly." (-"

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.
Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

On Oct 22, 11:04*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. *I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. *I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. *I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. *Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: *We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? *I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

*Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:33:21 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:04Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. Â*I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. Â*I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. Â*I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Â*Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: Â*We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? Â*I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

Â*Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.
Yup, but not to the exclusion of all else.
Well, most of us. A friend of mine hasn't been getting anything
accomplished this summer except getting "high" (flying his plane) and
getting "laid"

On 10/22/2010 9:02 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Wayne wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

--
Bobby G.


YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

TDD

On 10/22/2010 8:58 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Oct 18, 10:31 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:22:48 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
...
I have thought about it. If you'd like me to change my mind, please
supply some proof. Just saying someone is wrong, is useless. Telling
someone to "think about it" is insulting.

Our friend is using word games and appears to be claiming that somewhere
off
camera, in a perfectly sealed box, in a perfectly theoretical world where
all energy radiators are perfect and there's no such thing as conversion
efficiency, all light and heat end up the same - as heat. He's claiming
the
difference between the ratio of heat/light emitted does not matter
because
the CFL's much greater light output would be converted back into heat
when
it strikes the sides of the hypothetically perfect box.

The quote, precisely, was: "Nonsense. A 100W incandescent bulb will put
out
exactly the same heat as a
100W fluorescent; 100W."

"Exactly the same" is a) true only in the most theoretical sense, b) true
only if you decide to use the words heat and light interchangeably and c)
perhaps not really true even then. What he may have meant is "eventually"
but "exactly" implies that they *emit* the same amount of heat
simultaneously. That's simply not true. While both may radiate 25 watts
of
energy, they do it in very different forms.

In the much more rational and problematic world we live in, the CFL not
only
puts out less heat when measured at the emitter, it will put out less
heat
overall. In the real world all conversions from one form of energy to
another involve losses of some kind. If that wasn't so, we would have
totally safe CFL furnaces, converting light into heat without pesky
direct
combustion of fuel or dangerous resistance heaters. That's as ridiculous
as
claiming that going from electricity to light to heat is as efficient as
going straight from electricity to heat without an intermediate process.

The device that puts out more heat to begin with will put out more heat
in
the final analysis because it will not experience any loss in the
reconversion of light to heat. "Exactly" would only be true in a weird
sort
of Flatland, where CFL bulb heat would be the least of one's problems. In
the real world, a tungsten incandescent bulb outputs more heat than a CFL
bulb of the exact same wattage, even when used as a heater.

CFLs put out more visible light than incandescents do for the same input
current and they do it by converting more of the input energy into
visible
light and not IR or radiated thermal energy. Any claim that the heat
ouput
is equal can be easily sanity checked by looking the difference in light
output for the same wattage.

The device that doesn't have to convert twice - once from electricity to
light and then from light to heat HAS to be the more efficient one,
making
statements that they are both equally efficient radiators of heat dubious
at
best. If the claim is true, it's only true in a theoretical sense and
applies to a world where no one actually lives. In the real world, CFL's
emit far more light than heat, and IIRC it's on the order of 60 lumens
per
watt compared to an incandescent's 15. IIRC, the CFL emits 30 BTUs for a
similar incandescent's 80.

LED 3.4 btu's/hour
Incand. 85.0 btu's/hour
CFL 30.0 btu's/hour

Source:http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

Less light = more heat - over twice as hot according to these figures.

So yes, if you want to be a clever lad with words and use the terms heat
and
light interchangeably (except when you choose not to) AND you live in a
perfect theoretical world where conversion efficiencies are 100%, then
you
can say that CFLs and incandescents both output the same amount of heat -
eventually. It's a good reminder that one needs to watch for "magical
thinking" and "creative expression" on Usenet every damn day.

The only question is:
In the inefficiency of converting light energy to heat, what form does
the lost energy take???
If you can answer that one you aare all set.

My answer that it was very close to the same between the two types ,
rather than saying it was identical, is because I admit there is a
possibilty that a very small amount of the energy emitted by the bulb
might turn into something other than heat and light - and that the
light might not all return to heat - I'm not a Physicist.
Stormy says 100%. Not sure he's a phyisicist either.

You say there is an appreciable difference. You and stormy are both
adament that you are right and the other is wrong. Are you a
physicist? Can you explain where the energy that does not become heat
goes? If you can't, I'll have to lean to agreeing with Stormy -
because the FACT is energy cannot be destroyed. It is just converted,
at 100% efficiency, into another form of energy.

Well, now we're well into the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-
a-pin territory. While you're asking for the calcs, make sure that
they differentiate between heat from conduction, convection and
radiation, allow for differing emissivities, and, while we're at it,
can we nail down what dark matter is? Thanks!

Here's a thought - why don't you cross-post this to a physics
newsgroup and a couple of engineering ones? That should be
entertaining.

As you imply, the discussion at that level is largely irrelevant to the
concerns of AHR which is why I took exception to the purely theoretical
feldercarb about them being exactly efficient radiators of heat and light.

Things to ponder:

If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then where did the energy from
the Big Bang come from?

Why is the way the universe is expanding not quite matching up with the
theories, aka Dark Matter, Darth Vader's second cousin on his father's side.

Why doesn't a light bulb last forever? Are there processes other than the
generation of light absorbing energy?

Could the energy entering it be expended in not just heat but in physical
changes to the components?

Physicists have already created matter from energy so the rules get very
fuzzy the more theoretical you get:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1363

Why do things yellow and turn brittle under very bright light? Could that
energy be converted not just into heat but into chemical changes of the
material it strikes?

How do plants create biomass from sunlight?

Don't CFLs create RFI which will pass right through the box?

What would happen if you lowered (inside a waterproof container, for all you
wiseguys!) a tungsten bulb and a CFL of equal wattage into two calorimeters?
Would they both raise the temperature of the water an equal amount? All
interesting questions - for a theoretical physics group.

As you point out, if I came to AHR to read about angelic pin dancing it
would have been a far more entertaining discussion, but as it was written is
was wrong. At least if you believe in the common usage of the words "put
out, exactly, heat and light" He meant "eventually" - a word that has a
pretty clear meaning which isn't exactly "exactly." (-"

--
Bobby G.



That website is a wonderful resource and went straight to my favorites.
Thanks.

TDD

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:04*pm, wrote:
wrote:
-sip-

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? *I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

*Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.

I like my 'skateboards' with bucket seats, have a Sansa Fuze instead
of an ipod, do Usenet for my 'video fix', like to sip a good bourbon
in the evening, and still enjoy 'gettin' laid'-- so with adjustments
for a thing or two, I guess I'm a young 'un.

My thought is that younger folks are the exception here because;
1. it's Usenet fer god's sake!
2. youngsters are more likely to rent than buy
3. those who buy are
a. hiring somebody to do their repairs
b. are too damn smart to wade through all the off topic crap here
for the occasional nugget.

OTOH-- I do recall a few pretty smart 'young 'uns' dropping by over
the years. And by smart I mean that they knew how to ask a question
and 'work the room' for the most information out there.

Jim

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:


OTOH-- I do recall a few pretty smart 'young 'uns' dropping by over
the years. And by smart I mean that they knew how to ask a question
and 'work the room' for the most information out there.

And then immediately split until the next time to avoid all of the OT
stuff (g).
Maybe there is some hope for at least parts of the next
generation.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder
if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.
Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

Well, that's sure a lot of them. But my neighbor's kid is redoing his house
and is doing a great job considering he never had a father to teach him (ran
off just after he was born). He's got a family, kids and is determined
never to be the kind of father he didn't have. So far, so good. Went to
ITT, got into the electrician's union and works two jobs to make sure his
family is taken care of. His sister, however, has kids by three different
fathers (all have run off) and has been in and out of jail on crack charges
and breaks her mother's heart. Just goes to show the variation in
offspring.

--
Bobby G.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Oct 22, 11:04 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.

Yes. I have a load of cheapo MP3 players that I find useful for sitting
around waiting in doctor's offices, etc. Arthritis in both hands (probably
FROM video game playing) has ended my interest in video games (aside from
the fact most of the new ones don't seem to want to play on 400MHz PC's that
I use (keeps the young ones from even asking!). (-: We're not too keen on
roller anything around here since my wife, in a moment of trying to
recapture her youth, took up roller blading until some idiot nearly killed
her doing 50+ in a 25mph zone and caused her to slam her shoulder against a
curb. Three operations later and her rotator cuff is still giving her
trouble. Getting high? Not so much these days. Getting laid? Not so much
these days. (-"

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:33:21 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:04 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:02:07 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"Wayne Boatwright" wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder
if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.
Yup, but not to the exclusion of all else.
Well, most of us. A friend of mine hasn't been getting anything
accomplished this summer except getting "high" (flying his plane) and
getting "laid"

It's good to have hobbies. What I hate most is that now that I have to
money to be able to do all the things I wanted to do when I was young, I am
not young enough to do them anymore (without serious consequences, anyway!)
Youth is indeed wasted on the young. But the joke's on them. We're going
to leave them bankrupt, choking on air pollution with nothing but Soylent
Green to eat.

--
Bobby G.

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:04 pm, wrote:
wrote:
-sip-

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder
if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.

I like my 'skateboards' with bucket seats, have a Sansa Fuze instead
of an ipod, do Usenet for my 'video fix', like to sip a good bourbon
in the evening, and still enjoy 'gettin' laid'-- so with adjustments
for a thing or two, I guess I'm a young 'un.

It's those adjustments that are killing me. Long ago I realized I could
have about 10 perfectly serviceable MP3 players for the price of an Ipod -
ones that take AAA batteries so that you can carry spares. I bought a
couple of units with built-in USB rechargeable batteries and they all have
failed to deliver music at critical moments becuase the batteries were dead.
I have a huge DVD collection, so I guess that makes me a video nut but I've
never been to any on-line video sites because I refuse to use Flash, which I
think is good move since now websites have started using Flash cookies that
can't be wiped through typical browsers. I won't buy a Blu-ray player
because I don't like the idea of the manufacturer being able to revoke my
player by just playing a disc. My friend's Blu-ray unit totally locked up
after only three month's use. DVD is good enough for me.

My thought is that younger folks are the exception here because;
1. it's Usenet fer god's sake!
2. youngsters are more likely to rent than buy
3. those who buy are
a. hiring somebody to do their repairs
b. are too damn smart to wade through all the off topic crap here
for the occasional nugget.

3b. You mean like this thread (couldn't resist, sorry!)

OTOH-- I do recall a few pretty smart 'young 'uns' dropping by over
the years. And by smart I mean that they knew how to ask a question
and 'work the room' for the most information out there.

They are as rare as women are here, as far as I can tell. I blame lawyers
for that. There have been so many schools sued for injuries kids sustain in
shop class that many schools have just eliminated them from their programs.
I, on the other hand, went to a technical high school that had a machine
shop with lathes, milling machines, a metallurgy shop and a foundry. The
lathes were powered by an overhead belt and pulley system that were labeled
"Dept. of War" - that's how old they were. We started by creating a drawing
of a tool (a spanner wrench) freehand, then we learned to make mechanical
drawings from which we made a wooden pattern of the wrench, cast it in green
sand in the foundry and then machined it in machine shop. It was a great
way to learn engineering and I doubt very many students get their "hands
wet" like we did anymore.

--
Bobby G.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 10/22/2010 9:02 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Wayne wrote in message

stuff snipped

You can probably guess when someone was born by whether they
recognize certain TV shows from their youth. I come from the
"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea/Disney/Bonanza/The FBI" Sunday
night TV generation. I can't quite place any other shows to a
particular day but those shows seem to stick in my mind as family
TV night shows. I think "The Man from Uncle" would have been
Thursdays. Now think of how meaningless the above is for someone
born in 1990. (-: We're getting old and in the way, but only the
good die young.

stuff snipped

We must be about the same age. :-)

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder
if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

--
Bobby G.


YOU DAMN KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

TDD

grin That's how I knew I had "changed generations" - when I had to go out
and explain to the kids how dangerous it was to play baseball with a golf
ball (after I heard one crack against the side of the house).

"You're gonna put your eye out!"

--
Bobby G.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 10/22/2010 8:58 PM, Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

Physicists have already created matter from energy so the rules get very
fuzzy the more theoretical you get:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1363

Why do things yellow and turn brittle under very bright light? Could
that
energy be converted not just into heat but into chemical changes of the
material it strikes?

How do plants create biomass from sunlight?

Don't CFLs create RFI which will pass right through the box?

What would happen if you lowered (inside a waterproof container, for all
you
wiseguys!) a tungsten bulb and a CFL of equal wattage into two
calorimeters?
Would they both raise the temperature of the water an equal amount? All
interesting questions - for a theoretical physics group.

As you point out, if I came to AHR to read about angelic pin dancing it
would have been a far more entertaining discussion, but as it was
written is
was wrong. At least if you believe in the common usage of the words
"put
out, exactly, heat and light" He meant "eventually" - a word that has a
pretty clear meaning which isn't exactly "exactly." (-"

--
Bobby G.



That website is a wonderful resource and went straight to my favorites.
Thanks.

TDD

Well, at least SOME good has come out of this farrago of a thread. Have a
good friend who used to teach there. Trivia fans will note Urbana is
allegedly the birthplace of HAL in 2001.

Boy was that ever an optimistic movie. Moon bases, Pan Am in space. Pan Am
didn't even survive Earth! HAL was ranked No. 13 on a list of greatest film
villains of all time on the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains.

Open the pod bay doors, please HAL . . .

--
Bobby G.

(snip)

They are as rare as women are here, as far as I can tell. I blame lawyers
for that. There have been so many schools sued for injuries kids sustain in
shop class that many schools have just eliminated them from their programs.
I, on the other hand, went to a technical high school that had a machine
shop with lathes, milling machines, a metallurgy shop and a foundry. The
lathes were powered by an overhead belt and pulley system that were labeled
"Dept. of War" - that's how old they were. We started by creating a drawing
of a tool (a spanner wrench) freehand, then we learned to make mechanical
drawings from which we made a wooden pattern of the wrench, cast it in green
sand in the foundry and then machined it in machine shop. It was a great
way to learn engineering and I doubt very many students get their "hands
wet" like we did anymore.

Now you have me wandering whatever happened to that center punch I made
in 7th grade shop class. I've changed addresses half a dozen times or
more since then, so I doubt it is anywhere near daylight.

I presume that entire setup they had (lathes, casting room, etc) are all
long gone- thinking back, they wouldn't pass OSHA for grownups by modern
standards, much less having a room full of 7th grade boys playing with them.

--
aem sends..

On 10/23/2010 11:22 PM, aemeijers wrote:
(snip)

They are as rare as women are here, as far as I can tell. I blame lawyers
for that. There have been so many schools sued for injuries kids
sustain in
shop class that many schools have just eliminated them from their
programs.
I, on the other hand, went to a technical high school that had a machine
shop with lathes, milling machines, a metallurgy shop and a foundry. The
lathes were powered by an overhead belt and pulley system that were
labeled
"Dept. of War" - that's how old they were. We started by creating a
drawing
of a tool (a spanner wrench) freehand, then we learned to make mechanical
drawings from which we made a wooden pattern of the wrench, cast it in
green
sand in the foundry and then machined it in machine shop. It was a great
way to learn engineering and I doubt very many students get their "hands
wet" like we did anymore.

Now you have me wandering whatever happened to that center punch I made
in 7th grade shop class. I've changed addresses half a dozen times or
more since then, so I doubt it is anywhere near daylight.

I presume that entire setup they had (lathes, casting room, etc) are all
long gone- thinking back, they wouldn't pass OSHA for grownups by modern
standards, much less having a room full of 7th grade boys playing with
them.


How in the hell did we Baby Boomers survive our childhood?

TDD

On 10/23/2010 10:26 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 10/22/2010 8:58 PM, Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

Physicists have already created matter from energy so the rules get very
fuzzy the more theoretical you get:

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1363

Why do things yellow and turn brittle under very bright light? Could
that
energy be converted not just into heat but into chemical changes of the
material it strikes?

How do plants create biomass from sunlight?

Don't CFLs create RFI which will pass right through the box?

What would happen if you lowered (inside a waterproof container, for all
you
wiseguys!) a tungsten bulb and a CFL of equal wattage into two
calorimeters?
Would they both raise the temperature of the water an equal amount? All
interesting questions - for a theoretical physics group.

As you point out, if I came to AHR to read about angelic pin dancing it
would have been a far more entertaining discussion, but as it was
written is
was wrong. At least if you believe in the common usage of the words
"put
out, exactly, heat and light" He meant "eventually" - a word that has a
pretty clear meaning which isn't exactly "exactly." (-"

--
Bobby G.



That website is a wonderful resource and went straight to my favorites.
Thanks.

TDD

Well, at least SOME good has come out of this farrago of a thread. Have a
good friend who used to teach there. Trivia fans will note Urbana is
allegedly the birthplace of HAL in 2001.

Boy was that ever an optimistic movie. Moon bases, Pan Am in space. Pan Am
didn't even survive Earth! HAL was ranked No. 13 on a list of greatest film
villains of all time on the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains.

Open the pod bay doors, please HAL . . .

--
Bobby G.



Well, we could already have been to mars if the space program wasn't
vulnerable to the vagaries of politics.

TDD

On 10/23/2010 8:26 PM Robert Green spake thus:

Well, at least SOME good has come out of this farrago of a thread. Have a
good friend who used to teach there. Trivia fans will note Urbana is
allegedly the birthplace of HAL in 2001.

So, do they still call it "Shampoo-Banana"?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Oct 23, 11:09*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message

...



DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:04 pm, wrote:
wrote:
-sip-

Have you ever noticed how few younguns there are around here? I wonder
if
it means that the new generation isn't interested in home repair.

Most of the younuns aren't interested in anything but ipods, video
games, and skate-boards, gettin' high or gettin' laid. The only "fix"
they have in their lexicon is the one that makes them (or their
friends) high.

You know, there's a number of items in your list that many of us
"olduns" are still interested in.

I like my 'skateboards' with bucket seats, have a Sansa Fuze instead
of an ipod, do Usenet for my 'video fix', like to sip a good bourbon
in the evening, and still enjoy 'gettin' laid'-- so with adjustments
for a thing or two, I guess I'm a young 'un.

It's those adjustments that are killing me. *Long ago I realized I could
have about 10 perfectly serviceable MP3 players for the price of an Ipod -
ones that take AAA batteries so that you can carry spares. *I bought a
couple of units with built-in USB rechargeable batteries and they all have
failed to deliver music at critical moments becuase the batteries were dead.
I have a huge DVD collection, so I guess that makes me a video nut but I've
never been to any on-line video sites because I refuse to use Flash, which I
think is good move since now websites have started using Flash cookies that
can't be wiped through typical browsers. *I won't buy a Blu-ray player
because I don't like the idea of the manufacturer being able to revoke my
player by just playing a disc. *My friend's Blu-ray unit totally locked up
after only three month's use. *DVD is good enough for me.

My thought is that younger folks are the exception here because;
1. it's Usenet fer god's sake!
2. youngsters are more likely to rent than buy
3. those who buy are
* *a. hiring somebody to do their repairs
* *b. are too damn smart to wade through all the off topic crap here
for the occasional nugget.

3b. *You mean like this thread (couldn't resist, sorry!)

OTOH-- I do recall a few pretty smart 'young 'uns' dropping by over
the years. * *And by smart I mean that they knew how to ask a question
and 'work the room' for the most information out there.

They are as rare as women are here, as far as I can tell. *I blame lawyers
for that. *There have been so many schools sued for injuries kids sustain in
shop class that many schools have just eliminated them from their programs.
I, on the other hand, went to a technical high school that had a machine
shop with lathes, milling machines, a metallurgy shop and a foundry. *The
lathes were powered by an overhead belt and pulley system that were labeled
"Dept. of War" - that's how old they were. *We started by creating a drawing
of a tool (a spanner wrench) freehand, then we learned to make mechanical
drawings from which we made a wooden pattern of the wrench, cast it in green
sand in the foundry and then machined it in machine shop. *It was a great
way to learn engineering and I doubt very many students get their "hands
wet" like we did anymore.

--
Bobby G.

"There have been so many schools sued for injuries kids sustain in
shop class that many schools have just eliminated them from their
programs."

hmm...I wonder if that's why so many Art and Music classes have been
cut too.

You know, I'm leaning towards budget cuts as opposed to lawsuits.

My high school still has all three because we keep voting to have them
funded.

Besides, I thought it was the parent's job to ensure that their kid's
learned these types of life skills. My kids boys both took shop, but
the vast majority of what they learned about taking care of their cars
and houses either came from me or was introduced by me and then they
took it the next few steps.

I once showed my youngest son how to change his brake pads and the
next thing I knew he was doing a full brake job - rotors, calipers and
pads - on a junker that his older brother bought.

Sometimes they just need to be introduced to the subject matter and I
think that that introduction is my responsibility.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 10/23/2010 8:26 PM Robert Green spake thus:

Well, at least SOME good has come out of this farrago of a thread. Have
a
good friend who used to teach there. Trivia fans will note Urbana is
allegedly the birthplace of HAL in 2001.

So, do they still call it "Shampoo-Banana"?


You must be an old fogey. (-; Who in the modern age would use so many
letters when UR L8 means "You are late?"

It's now Chambana (which for non-midwesterners stands for the twin cities of
Champaign/Urbana).

--
Bobby G.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
(snip)

They are as rare as women are here, as far as I can tell. I blame
lawyers
for that. There have been so many schools sued for injuries kids
sustain in
shop class that many schools have just eliminated them from their
programs.
I, on the other hand, went to a technical high school that had a machine
shop with lathes, milling machines, a metallurgy shop and a foundry.
The
lathes were powered by an overhead belt and pulley system that were
labeled
"Dept. of War" - that's how old they were. We started by creating a
drawing
of a tool (a spanner wrench) freehand, then we learned to make
mechanical
drawings from which we made a wooden pattern of the wrench, cast it in
green
sand in the foundry and then machined it in machine shop. It was a
great
way to learn engineering and I doubt very many students get their "hands
wet" like we did anymore.

Now you have me wandering whatever happened to that center punch I made
in 7th grade shop class. I've changed addresses half a dozen times or
more since then, so I doubt it is anywhere near daylight.

Somewhere, I still have a little box of all the toolbits I made for lathe
work. Grinding them from blanks was quite an art and it took a lot of
blanks to get there. At least for me.

I presume that entire setup they had (lathes, casting room, etc) are all
long gone- thinking back, they wouldn't pass OSHA for grownups by modern
standards, much less having a room full of 7th grade boys playing with
them.

I haven't been to any reunions but friends that have tell me the old foundry
is now a garden (it was at the top of the building, with sand floors under a
glass roof). Not sure about the belt-drive lathes, but I would imagine they
are gone, too. The belts were caged and not easy to get tangled up in, but
every few years some bozo managed to do it. They also had a tendency to
break (as you can imagine, anything stamped "War Dept" wasn't very new) and
that was always a bit a fun as they flopped around, wrapped around the upper
shaft and kept slapping away until someone hit the master power switch.
They ran off the biggest electric motor I had ever seen and when it was
first turned on for the day, the room lights dimmed in respect. (-:

--
Bobby G.