I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought
someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE
"150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the
CFLs) does anyone know of any? I found one that maxed out at 40W online
that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs.
2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've
grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be
worth $12 plus shipping.

Is that really all there is out there?

Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy
pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still
available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be
as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing
200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)

thanks

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought
someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE
"150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the
CFLs) does anyone know of any? I found one that maxed out at 40W online
that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs.
2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've
grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be
worth $12 plus shipping.

Is that really all there is out there?

Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy
pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still
available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be
as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing
200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)

Your best option would probably be to rework the lamp to use more than
one CFL, like many old fashioned floor lamps which had two or three
bulbs before the 3 way ones came about. Certainly lamp parts are readily
available to make such a modification.

On Jun 13, 7:56*am, "Pete C." wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought
someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE
"150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the
CFLs) does anyone know of any? *I found one that maxed out at 40W online
that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs.
2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've
grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be
worth $12 plus shipping.

Is that really all there is out there?

Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy
pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still
available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be
as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing
200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)

Your best option would probably be to rework the lamp to use more than
one CFL, like many old fashioned floor lamps which had two or three
bulbs before the 3 way ones came about. Certainly lamp parts are readily
available to make such a modification.

Well, I could just shove a "300W" CFL in it and not use the 3-way
function; just wondering if there was a more elegant solution
availalable. Primary use would be for a floor lamp plugged into a
recep controlled by a wall switch (no ceiling light fixture in the
room of concern) that would probably spend 90% of its time on the
brightest setting, as it's used for general room illumination, and the
walls are dark wood. It just bothers me when things don't work like
they're supposed to

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of new cheap lamps
have sockets rated for only 100W now? Guess if you want to use them
for general illumination - and I've noticed this even w/ large floor
lamps - you pretty much HAVE to use CFLs now.

nate

On Jun 13, 8:02*am, N8N wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:56*am, "Pete C." wrote:





Nate Nagel wrote:

I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought
someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE
"150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the
CFLs) does anyone know of any? *I found one that maxed out at 40W online
that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs.
2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've
grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be
worth $12 plus shipping.

Is that really all there is out there?

Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy
pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still
available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be
as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing
200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)

Your best option would probably be to rework the lamp to use more than
one CFL, like many old fashioned floor lamps which had two or three
bulbs before the 3 way ones came about. Certainly lamp parts are readily
available to make such a modification.

Well, I could just shove a "300W" CFL in it and not use the 3-way
function; just wondering if there was a more elegant solution
availalable. *Primary use would be for a floor lamp plugged into a
recep controlled by a wall switch (no ceiling light fixture in the
room of concern) that would probably spend 90% of its time on the
brightest setting, as it's used for general room illumination, and the
walls are dark wood. *It just bothers me when things don't work like
they're supposed to

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of new cheap lamps
have sockets rated for only 100W now? *Guess if you want to use them
for general illumination - and I've noticed this even w/ large floor
lamps - you pretty much HAVE to use CFLs now.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never noticed max lamp power on most sockets on fixtures, just a
stick-on label on the entire fixture limiting max wattage. OR, is
that what you meant?

On 06/13/2011 10:29 PM, hr(bob) wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:02 am, wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:56 am, "Pete wrote:





Nate Nagel wrote:

I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought
someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE
"150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the
CFLs) does anyone know of any? I found one that maxed out at 40W online
that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs.
2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've
grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be
worth $12 plus shipping.

Is that really all there is out there?

Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy
pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still
available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be
as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing
200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)

Your best option would probably be to rework the lamp to use more than
one CFL, like many old fashioned floor lamps which had two or three
bulbs before the 3 way ones came about. Certainly lamp parts are readily
available to make such a modification.

Well, I could just shove a "300W" CFL in it and not use the 3-way
function; just wondering if there was a more elegant solution
availalable. Primary use would be for a floor lamp plugged into a
recep controlled by a wall switch (no ceiling light fixture in the
room of concern) that would probably spend 90% of its time on the
brightest setting, as it's used for general room illumination, and the
walls are dark wood. It just bothers me when things don't work like
they're supposed to

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of new cheap lamps
have sockets rated for only 100W now? Guess if you want to use them
for general illumination - and I've noticed this even w/ large floor
lamps - you pretty much HAVE to use CFLs now.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never noticed max lamp power on most sockets on fixtures, just a
stick-on label on the entire fixture limiting max wattage. OR, is
that what you meant?

that's what I meant, used to be it was typically 200W, 300W or more.
Anymore it's usually 100W.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jun 14, 4:58*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 06/13/2011 10:29 PM, hr(bob) wrote:





On Jun 13, 8:02 am, *wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:56 am, "Pete *wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought
someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE
"150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the
CFLs) does anyone know of any? *I found one that maxed out at 40W online
that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs..
2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've
grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be
worth $12 plus shipping.

Is that really all there is out there?

Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy
pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still
available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be
as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing
200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)

Your best option would probably be to rework the lamp to use more than
one CFL, like many old fashioned floor lamps which had two or three
bulbs before the 3 way ones came about. Certainly lamp parts are readily
available to make such a modification.

Well, I could just shove a "300W" CFL in it and not use the 3-way
function; just wondering if there was a more elegant solution
availalable. *Primary use would be for a floor lamp plugged into a
recep controlled by a wall switch (no ceiling light fixture in the
room of concern) that would probably spend 90% of its time on the
brightest setting, as it's used for general room illumination, and the
walls are dark wood. *It just bothers me when things don't work like
they're supposed to

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of new cheap lamps
have sockets rated for only 100W now? *Guess if you want to use them
for general illumination - and I've noticed this even w/ large floor
lamps - you pretty much HAVE to use CFLs now.

nate- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never noticed max lamp power on most sockets on fixtures, just a
stick-on label on the entire fixture limiting max wattage. *OR, is
that what you meant?

that's what I meant, used to be it was typically 200W, 300W or more.
Anymore it's usually 100W.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe folks are just getting more cautious due to all the frivolous
lawsiuts that are now in vogue.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

I'll think differently when I
see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually prevailed.

A few of them put every manufacturer of small airplanes out of business
in this country. Cessna eventually came back, but it is said that 1/2
the cost of an airplane goes to liability insurance premiums.

One of the most infamous was a successful claim involving a taildragger.
You cannot see out the windshield of those planes while taxiing, because
the nose of the plane sits too high. During takeoff, you look out the
side window until you have enough speed to lift the tail.

A dispute arose between an airplane owner and an airport official. The
pilot began his takeoff roll and the official parked his truck across
the runway to block him. The pilot died. His widow sued the airplane
manufacturer for many millions, for designing and building an inherently
dangerous plane. IIRC, the plane was about 40 years old at the time,
when a majority of all planes were taildraggers.

Frivolous lawsuits are not mythology.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message newsrestwhich-
"Robert Green" wrote:

I'll think differently when I
see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually prevailed.

A few of them put every manufacturer of small airplanes out of business
in this country. Cessna eventually came back, but it is said that 1/2
the cost of an airplane goes to liability insurance premiums.

If that's true it's because they can do a lot of damage when they fall out
of the sky. IIRC general aviation has an alarmingly high rate of alcoholism
which could also be a contributing factor in overall GA litigation (which I
know next to nothing about).

One of the most infamous was a successful claim involving a taildragger.

Damn you Smitty, now I am going to have to do homework and research this
thing. (-:

You cannot see out the windshield of those planes while taxiing, because
the nose of the plane sits too high. During takeoff, you look out the
side window until you have enough speed to lift the tail.

Not a very good idea. The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing. A good lawyer would argue that was "state of the art" in airplane
manufacture and it was the technology needed to avoid having to look out the
side window. They would point to designs where what you describe is not the
case. The would argue the plane needed a stilt wheel on the back to raise
the tail. I've seen plenty of auto liability cases, and that's how they go.

I can see a Gerry Spence-type lawyer making that case to a jury and winning,
especially going against the kind of buttwipe lawyer that's often on
retainer to a small company. There's a time to big out the big hired guns.
Even Michael Jackson knew that. You'd be surprised at how many companies
laugh at lawsuits like that without realizing they could get outlawyered
good. Many don't realize that once *one* person wins, the floodgates can
open and a barrage of similar suits will appear soon after the losing
verdict is in.

The incident you describe is something that can be sold to the jury simply.
The aircraft maker knew there was a problem. Others had worked around it.
This planemaker didn't. Someone died. A lot of these small companies
didn't carry enough insurance to have their insurers care enough to hire the
best, which they will do when they are under threat of enough loss. ****
does happen, Smitty, and to people who don't really deserve it. Not being
able to see in front of you when taking off? Bad idea. Anyone 5' or shorter
on the jury who's ever had to put a phone book on a car seat would vote
against the plane maker. That's how they work. Could this happen to me?
Would *I* want to be paid for harm? Ubetcha they would.

A dispute arose between an airplane owner and an airport official. The
pilot began his takeoff roll and the official parked his truck across
the runway to block him. The pilot died. His widow sued the airplane
manufacturer for many millions, for designing and building an inherently
dangerous plane. IIRC, the plane was about 40 years old at the time,
when a majority of all planes were taildraggers.

You're more familiar, obviously, with small planes. Are they still making
planes like that? What happened there is the old "deep pocket" trick.
Smart lawyers look for the wealthiest defendants because you can't get blood
from a stone - and probably not very much from a stupid airport official who
*should* have been solely liable for that accident.

Frivolous lawsuits are not mythology.

I never said they were. I said:

[There are] Not as many [frivolous lawsuits] as you might think. Lawyers
work on contingency and unless they are milking their clients for "expenses"
they are not as quick to take on totally BS lawsuits as people might think.
I'll think differently when I see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the
plaintiff actually prevailed.

The issue here is that courts do not consider any incident where a person
dies or is seriously injured frivolous. By definition. Fear of lawsuits
makes manufacturers far more careful than they would be in a court-free
world.

My dad did forensic investigation after retiring from the Navy. When
someone died, smart companies pulled out all the stops because they knew how
badly the dice could roll against them with a jury. They got the best
investigators and lawyers they could find. I worked with him on 7 million
dollar suit against GM with him where a car became airborne and both
plaintiffs had been injured, one ending up a quadriplegic.

GM opened the taps, as lawyers say, and even drove a "new old stock" model
of that then 8 year old car to DC from Detroit, where apparently they keep
an inventory of every car they've ever made in showroom condition just for
such occasions. We were able to disprove the ludicrous contention that the
drive shaft broke before the crash and the whipping shaft launched the car
airborne.

It was only because the Maryland State Police had so thoroughly photographed
and documented the scene that we were able to prove to a jury that the
plaintiff had hit a very sturdy metal road sign that bent over just enough
to act as a launching ramp for the car that they determined had been
traveling close to 100mph.

The jury was very sympathetic to the drooling driver in a puff-straw
controlled wheelchair and his horribly scarred wife (she got the "glass
necklace" treatment from going through the windshield). The post-crash
photos (which our side tried to exclude as inflammatory and non-probative
but failed) were some of the most gruesome things you'd ever want to not
see. If the MSP, who has one of the best accident reconstruction teams in
the US (perhaps the world), did not do the incredibly thorough job they did,
GM would have lost that case just because the jury *wanted* to give these
poor, battered and uninsured people some money out of charity. By the time
a suit was filed, almost all the physical evidence at the scene was gone.

The opposing lawyers, tasting that potential multi-million dollar payday,
worked very hard and were VERY good, but GM actually recreated the accident
at their facilities in Detroit with yet another nearly identical car - I
believe but can't recall - they bought it used because the plaintiff's car
was used - and had a robotic driving mechanism fitted to the car which they
drove into a similar sign. Guess what happened? You guessed it, the sucker
launched into the air like a jet off a carrier. Was that suit frivolous?
Probably, but I think the plaintiffs didn't think it so frivolous because
the lawyers convinced their clients they could win.

What is a frivolous lawsuit? The Birther lawsuits were frivolous
particularly because the plaintiffs could not prove they had been harmed.
Civil justice is very much about harm and restoring or compensating for that
harm. I believe the most famous of the BS's was brought by a lawyer acting
as his own attorney (a sure sign that frivolity is near - the pro se
filing). It's very often, but not always (I won a pro se suit!) an
indicator that the suit has no merit. Where's the payout for a lawyer
bringing a birther suit? How was the plaintiff harmed? (Oh, the nastygrams
are on the way with this one. Just remember, that's what the judge said. I
am merely repeating it.)

The judge, IIRC, banned the plaintiff reluctantly because limiting access to
the courts is considered an extremely harsh penalty. But it's necessary
with the "sue freaks" who sue everyone for everything under the sun hoping
to squeeze out a settlement. I'll admit that's a serious court clogging
problem and if you want to call them frivolous lawsuits, then I'll agree.
Did I just reverse myself? (-: Maybe. What I won't agree is that very
many of them ever get adjudicated in their favor and some litigants even get
banned. Lots of businesses settle them, but it's like feeding trolls. It
just makes them hungrier.

If litigants actually lose frivolous lawsuits filed against them, they hired
themselves some idjit lawyers or they didn't take the threat seriously
enough. That happens probably more often than people think based on the
sickening number of trials I had to sit through in my life and the lawyers
who were so freaking awful that some of them actually got sanctioned and one
got disbarred.

Just a couple of weeks watching the old CourtTV would convince anyone that
the wrong lawyer could get even the most innocent of clients the death
sentence. Maybe we need to change the saying to "The DA could indict a ham
sandwich and Joe Blow, Esq, the world's worst defense attorney could get
that sandwich the electric chair." (-: (Vic, are you reading this?)

I know one poor idjit who, after a fight with his wife, got charged with
attempted murder. His first lawyer, after squeezing every bit of cash the
guy had anywhere, told him to cop a plea, and he took 20 years. Only later
did he find out the prison system here doesn't keep guys as old as him in
much past 65. He was 62. (They actually kept him until age 67 when he had
his first heart attack.)

He eventually fired that lawyer, got one used by area crack dealers who
probably could have gotten him off but she couldn't crack the plea deal his
first lawyer convinced him to enter into, not bothering to tell him he would
never, ever serve 20 years or life, even if he lost at trial. He got the
worst outcome possible by hiring a lawyer that came "highly recommended" but
who was a money-grubbing dork. He could have copped a plea "pro se" and
saved himself $150,000. You read right. One Freaking Hundred and Fifty
THOUSAND smackeroos, just to do what he could have done for free: cop a
plea.

Never cop a plea, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER. Witnesses die,
people forget and if you can get out on bail, you can motion your way into
at least two extra years of freedom. If you lose, you can always appeal,
all the way up the Supremes. When you cop a plea, that's it, you're done.
Yes, they'll tell you a plea gets you 10 years but a trial *could* get you
life. A plea gets you 10 years for sure, but a trial *could* get you zero
time. And yet so many people are cowed into taking pleas. After OJ and
Robert Blake walked, anyone who takes a plea and doesn't "spin the wheel"
with a jury is an idjit.

What's this got to do with 3-way bulbs anyway?

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Not being
able to see in front of you when taking off? Bad idea.

The Spirit of St. Louis didn't even have a windshield. The space in
front of Lindbergh was occupied by fuel tanks.

The DC3 was a taildragger.

The Piper Cub was a taildragger.

Amelia Earhart's plane, a Lockheed Electra, was, too.

Virtually every WW2 airplane was a taildragger: fighters, bombers, all
of them.

The official name for taildragger is "conventional" gear.

Yes, they still make planes that way, lots of them. Much better bush
planes, better for short take off and landings, rough field operations,
etc. Most aerobatic planes are tailwheel planes.

The thing is, see, parking a truck on a runway while a plane is on a
takeoff roll is akin to dropping a 5000 pound boulder on top of a car
while it's on the highway, and then claim that the car is dangerous
because you can't see out the roof, and the roof can't withstand a minor
impact like a 5000 pound boulder.

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
newsrestwhich-
"Robert Green" wrote:

I'll think differently when I
see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually
prevailed.

A few of them put every manufacturer of small airplanes out of
business in this country. Cessna eventually came back, but it is said
that 1/2 the cost of an airplane goes to liability insurance
premiums.

If that's true it's because they can do a lot of damage when they fall
out of the sky. IIRC general aviation has an alarmingly high rate of
alcoholism which could also be a contributing factor in overall GA
litigation (which I know next to nothing about).

One of the most infamous was a successful claim involving a
taildragger.

Damn you Smitty, now I am going to have to do homework and research
this thing. (-:

You cannot see out the windshield of those planes while taxiing,
because the nose of the plane sits too high. During takeoff, you look
out the side window until you have enough speed to lift the tail.

Not a very good idea. The Concorde had a nose that drooped for
take-off and landing. A good lawyer would argue that was "state of
the art" in airplane manufacture and it was the technology needed to
avoid having to look out the side window. They would point to designs
where what you describe is not the case. The would argue the plane
needed a stilt wheel on the back to raise the tail. I've seen plenty
of auto liability cases, and that's how they go.

I can see a Gerry Spence-type lawyer making that case to a jury and
winning, especially going against the kind of buttwipe lawyer that's
often on retainer to a small company. There's a time to big out the
big hired guns. Even Michael Jackson knew that. You'd be surprised at
how many companies laugh at lawsuits like that without realizing they
could get outlawyered good. Many don't realize that once *one* person
wins, the floodgates can open and a barrage of similar suits will
appear soon after the losing verdict is in.

The incident you describe is something that can be sold to the jury
simply. The aircraft maker knew there was a problem. Others had
worked around it. This planemaker didn't. Someone died. A lot of
these small companies didn't carry enough insurance to have their
insurers care enough to hire the best, which they will do when they
are under threat of enough loss. **** does happen, Smitty, and to
people who don't really deserve it. Not being able to see in front of
you when taking off? Bad idea. Anyone 5' or shorter on the jury who's
ever had to put a phone book on a car seat would vote against the
plane maker. That's how they work. Could this happen to me? Would *I*
want to be paid for harm? Ubetcha they would.

A dispute arose between an airplane owner and an airport official.
The pilot began his takeoff roll and the official parked his truck
across the runway to block him. The pilot died. His widow sued the
airplane manufacturer for many millions, for designing and building
an inherently dangerous plane. IIRC, the plane was about 40 years old
at the time, when a majority of all planes were taildraggers.

You're more familiar, obviously, with small planes. Are they still
making planes like that? What happened there is the old "deep pocket"
trick. Smart lawyers look for the wealthiest defendants because you
can't get blood from a stone - and probably not very much from a
stupid airport official who *should* have been solely liable for that
accident.

Frivolous lawsuits are not mythology.

I never said they were. I said:

[There are] Not as many [frivolous lawsuits] as you might think.
Lawyers work on contingency and unless they are milking their clients
for "expenses" they are not as quick to take on totally BS lawsuits as
people might think. I'll think differently when I see a list of
frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually prevailed.

The issue here is that courts do not consider any incident where a
person dies or is seriously injured frivolous. By definition. Fear of
lawsuits makes manufacturers far more careful than they would be in a
court-free world.

My dad did forensic investigation after retiring from the Navy. When
someone died, smart companies pulled out all the stops because they
knew how badly the dice could roll against them with a jury. They got
the best investigators and lawyers they could find. I worked with him
on 7 million dollar suit against GM with him where a car became
airborne and both plaintiffs had been injured, one ending up a
quadriplegic.

GM opened the taps, as lawyers say, and even drove a "new old stock"
model of that then 8 year old car to DC from Detroit, where apparently
they keep an inventory of every car they've ever made in showroom
condition just for such occasions. We were able to disprove the
ludicrous contention that the drive shaft broke before the crash and
the whipping shaft launched the car airborne.

It was only because the Maryland State Police had so thoroughly
photographed and documented the scene that we were able to prove to a
jury that the plaintiff had hit a very sturdy metal road sign that
bent over just enough to act as a launching ramp for the car that they
determined had been traveling close to 100mph.

The jury was very sympathetic to the drooling driver in a puff-straw
controlled wheelchair and his horribly scarred wife (she got the
"glass necklace" treatment from going through the windshield). The
post-crash photos (which our side tried to exclude as inflammatory and
non-probative but failed) were some of the most gruesome things you'd
ever want to not see. If the MSP, who has one of the best accident
reconstruction teams in the US (perhaps the world), did not do the
incredibly thorough job they did, GM would have lost that case just
because the jury *wanted* to give these poor, battered and uninsured
people some money out of charity. By the time a suit was filed,
almost all the physical evidence at the scene was gone.

The opposing lawyers, tasting that potential multi-million dollar
payday, worked very hard and were VERY good, but GM actually recreated
the accident at their facilities in Detroit with yet another nearly
identical car - I believe but can't recall - they bought it used
because the plaintiff's car was used - and had a robotic driving
mechanism fitted to the car which they drove into a similar sign.
Guess what happened? You guessed it, the sucker launched into the air
like a jet off a carrier. Was that suit frivolous? Probably, but I
think the plaintiffs didn't think it so frivolous because the lawyers
convinced their clients they could win.

What is a frivolous lawsuit? The Birther lawsuits were frivolous
particularly because the plaintiffs could not prove they had been
harmed. Civil justice is very much about harm and restoring or
compensating for that harm. I believe the most famous of the BS's was
brought by a lawyer acting as his own attorney (a sure sign that
frivolity is near - the pro se filing). It's very often, but not
always (I won a pro se suit!) an indicator that the suit has no merit.
Where's the payout for a lawyer bringing a birther suit? How was the
plaintiff harmed? (Oh, the nastygrams are on the way with this one.
Just remember, that's what the judge said. I am merely repeating it.)

The judge, IIRC, banned the plaintiff reluctantly because limiting
access to the courts is considered an extremely harsh penalty. But
it's necessary with the "sue freaks" who sue everyone for everything
under the sun hoping to squeeze out a settlement. I'll admit that's a
serious court clogging problem and if you want to call them frivolous
lawsuits, then I'll agree. Did I just reverse myself? (-: Maybe.
What I won't agree is that very many of them ever get adjudicated in
their favor and some litigants even get banned. Lots of businesses
settle them, but it's like feeding trolls. It just makes them
hungrier.

If litigants actually lose frivolous lawsuits filed against them, they
hired themselves some idjit lawyers or they didn't take the threat
seriously enough. That happens probably more often than people think
based on the sickening number of trials I had to sit through in my
life and the lawyers who were so freaking awful that some of them
actually got sanctioned and one got disbarred.

Just a couple of weeks watching the old CourtTV would convince anyone
that the wrong lawyer could get even the most innocent of clients the
death sentence. Maybe we need to change the saying to "The DA could
indict a ham sandwich and Joe Blow, Esq, the world's worst defense
attorney could get that sandwich the electric chair." (-: (Vic, are
you reading this?)

I know one poor idjit who, after a fight with his wife, got charged
with attempted murder. His first lawyer, after squeezing every bit of
cash the guy had anywhere, told him to cop a plea, and he took 20
years. Only later did he find out the prison system here doesn't keep
guys as old as him in much past 65. He was 62. (They actually kept
him until age 67 when he had his first heart attack.)

He eventually fired that lawyer, got one used by area crack dealers
who probably could have gotten him off but she couldn't crack the plea
deal his first lawyer convinced him to enter into, not bothering to
tell him he would never, ever serve 20 years or life, even if he lost
at trial. He got the worst outcome possible by hiring a lawyer that
came "highly recommended" but who was a money-grubbing dork. He could
have copped a plea "pro se" and saved himself $150,000. You read
right. One Freaking Hundred and Fifty THOUSAND smackeroos, just to do
what he could have done for free: cop a plea.

Never cop a plea, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER. Witnesses
die, people forget and if you can get out on bail, you can motion your
way into at least two extra years of freedom. If you lose, you can
always appeal, all the way up the Supremes. When you cop a plea,
that's it, you're done. Yes, they'll tell you a plea gets you 10 years
but a trial *could* get you life. A plea gets you 10 years for sure,
but a trial *could* get you zero time. And yet so many people are
cowed into taking pleas. After OJ and Robert Blake walked, anyone who
takes a plea and doesn't "spin the wheel" with a jury is an idjit.

What's this got to do with 3-way bulbs anyway?

--
Bobby G.





The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture when a 50¢
Harbor Freight camera would do.

"Red Green" wrote in message

The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture when a 50¢
Harbor Freight camera would do.

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap, tiny
cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras probably wouldn't stand
up to crossing the sound barrier (or maybe even crossing the street!), etc.

But a cheap, modern cam like the one I have in my van, which has a terrible
blind spot in back, would solve some of the taildragger problems. IIRC, the
latest airliners have a very thorough CCTV system inspired, in part, by a
fire in the luggage compartment that downed an Air Florida jet. Now the
pilots can use the cameras to see what's happening in areas where there's no
flight crew. I believe the cameras are not only in the luggage area, but in
the space above the pilot's cabin where electrical fires tend to break out
since a alot of the plane's wiring terminates there.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

....


... I'll think differently when I
see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually prevailed.
....


The plaintiff doesn't need to win to cause liability insurance rates to
beccome totally astronomical and force potential defendents to find
other ways to invest their money than to continue in a litigation-prone
area.

I had an uncle w/ longterm management experience w/ Cessna/Wichita and
was there when they made the corporate decision to leave the
single-engine market. That decision (along w/ that of Beech, etc.), was
entirely driven by the fact that the liability was seen as too great for
the potential return in the environment at the time.

One of the stories was the one of the guy who had bought a used 150 of
30-some years' age; failed to have an updated air certification done,
had only a few hours of flight time after getting his ticket.

His first landing he nosed it into ground, caught prop on runway and
flipped it. Widow sued Cessna for manufacturing and selling the
aircraft as it was inherently a flaw that the prop could do that.

The cost of defending even nonsense litigation got to be so expensive
just was not financially viable business any longer at the time.

There has been a shifting of courts not taking _quite_ so many truly
frivolous lawsuits to trial any longer and the manufacturers have
restructured their handling of the expenses associated since but it
still is a significant cost of the airplane just as liability drives
medical costs to be far higher than otherwise would be if were only
covering the actual service cost plus reasonable fee structure.

--

dpb wrote:

....

One of the stories was the one of the guy who had bought a used 150 of
30-some years' age; failed to have an updated air certification done,
had only a few hours of flight time after getting his ticket.

His first landing he nosed it into ground, caught prop on runway and
flipped it. Widow sued Cessna for manufacturing and selling the
aircraft as it was inherently a flaw that the prop could do that.
....


Hadn't thought of this in years...more/better recollection after the
initial posting--actually, he hit the ground so hard he collapsed the
landing gear and that was what caused/allowed the prop to contact the
ground and cause the flipover. The claim was that the gear were
inadequate or similar nonsense...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...

stuff snipped

Hadn't thought of this in years...more/better recollection after the
initial posting--actually, he hit the ground so hard he collapsed the
landing gear and that was what caused/allowed the prop to contact the
ground and cause the flip-overs. The claim was that the gear were
inadequate or similar nonsense...

If that was the case, they hired bad lawyers. Sometimes manufacturers, as
subject experts, are certain they are going to win hands down and fail to
appropriate sufficient resources to defending themselves. I've seen it so
many times that it's sad. Jurors are NOT subject matter experts. They are
retired government workers, schoolteachers and housewives. They often do
not know anything about the subject and if the plaintiff's lawyers are very
good, jurors can be convinced that up is down and black is white. It takes
equally good attorneys on the other side to disprove "black is white" and
other claims the plaintiff might make.

Some manufacturers don't realize that once they lose a case that should have
been dismissed before trial that it "opens the floodgates" for more, similar
litigation. Unstable, "flip-over" prone car designs are a good example.
While it's very likely that bad driving is behind many flip-overs, at the
end of the day when Model X auto flip-overs outnumber (proportionately) the
flip-over rates for almost all other vehicles *combined* it's pretty easy to
convince a jury that ALL Model X flip-overs are the fault of the design,
true or not.

I recall when we discussed the McDonald's hot coffee flap here that someone
pointed out that the details of the case are NOT what got reported in the
news. It was assumed by a surprisingly large number of posters that this
was some money-grubbing woman that was hardly hurt who must have injured
herself because she was not careful. It was widely cited as the epitome of
the "frivolous lawsuit" although I find people only say it's frivolous until
it happens to them or a loved one. Big Business would like to be immune to
ALL lawsuits, which is why there's so much ire directed at trial lawyers.
Some of them have even been able to get Congress to exempt them from product
liability lawsuits, as some vaccine makers were able to do.

The actual facts of the case were far, far different. I thought it even
might have been you (it's hard to remember people only by their initials,
FWIW) that pointed out that McDonald's was serving the coffee close to the
boiling point because it tended to cut down on people asking for free
refills. Her injuries were incredibly severe, as you might expect when
near-boiling water falls on the area of your genitals.

When McDonald's went "hard assed" and refused a reasonable settlement to the
case they got "sued and screwed." Only then did they change their operating
procedures so that coffee was no longer served at temperatures where it
could cause severe tissue damage if spilled. Spilling at the drive thru
happens often with the many variables associated with such delivery (car
heights, arm lengths, distance from the window, server IQ, etc).

As I've said, I don't know much about general aviation or Cessna litigation.
Law firms tend to specialize and hire lawyers that match their
specialization. Many medical malpractice lawyers also have a medical degree
or extensive training or experience in the medical arts. The "facts"
surrounding the litigation on these small airplane crashes are obviously not
the whole truth about the incidents, just as the details hardly ever come
out about the scalding coffee case. I am sure if we followed the trial
transcript closely we would find either "bad lawyering" or a smoking gun in
the manufacturer's hand over some detail.

Do bad verdicts happen? Of course. Look at Orenthal the Wife Murdering
Football "Hero." Did Robert Blake murder his wife? Maybe not him, but it's
likely a friend or an associate of his did. Murders like that are almost
always done by the husband because he's the one with an extreme financial
motive. However, it doesn't ALWAYS mean he did it. A smart criminal,
realizing the husband would be blamed, could use that to arrange clues that
point to the husband. It's very possible that some previous victim of
Bonnie Lee Blakely did the crime and left clues that pointed to Blake, but
that "went nowhere" in the end.

When cops and the DA get a "suspect lock" they often overlook a significant
number of clues that point elsewhere because they would provide an
"alternate theory" of the crime that makes jurors reluctant to convict. A
smart lawyer often discovers that the DA has been holding back and can use
that to very good advantage. A DA burying clues that DON'T point to the
suspect is always a bad thing, yet they have always done it and will
continue to do it. It's human nature.

Although lots of people would claim otherwise, there's a clear societal
benefit from such lawsuits. In the McDonald's case it was to turn down the
heat on coffee that was served in an undrinkable state just to avoid paying
for flavored water refills that probably cost the company next to nothing in
reality. Both McDonald's and their customers win in the long run. McD's is
less vulnerable to similar, future suits and customers are less likely to
have their balls burned off. Win-win. Civil litigation is just about the
only mechanism to force these changes. It took an awful lot of burned faces
to get Bic to change its lighter design to something less likely to leak.

So that's why there's a "100W Maximum" label on the inside of lamps
nowadays. It's almost certainly a result of someone doing something stupid
like sticking a 300W photoflood in a lamp holder that couldn't handle it.
My Dad would even go further and say that it's almost a certainty that
someone (and perhaps many someones) died for every warning label you're
likely to see on a product or every (!) warning you see in the product's
instructions.

As I read up on general aviation litigation, I see that in many cases, it's
not just the lone pilot that perishes, but a plane full of fairly rich
people (a Cessna's not a poor man's toy). That means the family of each
survivor hires and attorney and suddenly Cessna's faced with a considerable
legal brain trust adept at finding any possible fault that can point back to
the manufacturer.

The recent crash of an Air France jetliner on a trip to South America was
likely caused by a frozen pitot tube (actually THREE) that Airbus and Air
France both knew was a failure point (it's failed from freezing many times
before because of underpowered deicers) but they were slow to replace the
air speed sensor tubes. As a result, the tubes all froze over, the
autopilot disengaged and lots of people died.

Look for both Air France and Airbus to get socked with big dollar lawsuits
and for them to LOSE those suits because they had very clear and
well-documented prior knowledge of the problem but failed to correct it in a
timely fashion, deciding to replace the tubes as the planes were scheduled
for certain maintenance milestones, which is much cheaper for them. You can
bet your butt that they're going to fix it NOW. That's a benefit for
everyone in the world that flies on a Airbus and I think that's a very good
thing.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message

The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture when a
50¢ Harbor Freight camera would do.

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap, tiny
cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras probably wouldn't
stand up to crossing the sound barrier (or maybe even crossing the
street!), etc.

Sounds like you buy into that get what you pay for business. Just duct
tape some of the scrap windshield material over the lens.


But a cheap, modern cam like the one I have in my van, which has a
terrible blind spot in back, would solve some of the taildragger
problems. IIRC, the latest airliners have a very thorough CCTV system
inspired, in part, by a fire in the luggage compartment that downed an
Air Florida jet. Now the pilots can use the cameras to see what's
happening in areas where there's no flight crew. I believe the
cameras are not only in the luggage area, but in the space above the
pilot's cabin where electrical fires tend to break out since a alot of
the plane's wiring terminates there.

--
Bobby G.

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message

The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture when a
50¢ Harbor Freight camera would do.

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap, tiny
cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras probably wouldn't
stand up to crossing the sound barrier (or maybe even crossing the
street!), etc.

Sounds like you buy into that get what you pay for business. Just duct
tape some of the scrap windshield material over the lens.

I'd take a plexiglas bubble skylight, cut a hole in the cockpit floor and
mount foot stirrups so the pilot could hang upside while taking off or
landing. Sort of like the domes used for ball turret gunners. It would be
an extra encouragement to keep the plane from landing so hard it collapses
the landing gear.

I gotta admit when I saw that drooping nose I thought - I'll bet there are a
few more "failure points" in the Concorde than in normal-nosed airplanes.
Oddly enough, in its mostly fatal crash, the pilot ran over something on the
runaway. Something they probably couldn't see.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message

The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture when a
50¢ Harbor Freight camera would do.

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap,
tiny cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras probably
wouldn't stand up to crossing the sound barrier (or maybe even
crossing the street!), etc.

Sounds like you buy into that get what you pay for business. Just
duct tape some of the scrap windshield material over the lens.

I'd take a plexiglas bubble skylight, cut a hole in the cockpit floor
and mount foot stirrups so the pilot could hang upside while taking
off or landing. Sort of like the domes used for ball turret gunners.
It would be an extra encouragement to keep the plane from landing so
hard it collapses the landing gear.

I gotta admit when I saw that drooping nose I thought - I'll bet there
are a few more "failure points" in the Concorde than in normal-nosed
airplanes. Oddly enough, in its mostly fatal crash, the pilot ran over
something on the runaway. Something they probably couldn't see.

--
Bobby G.



Probably a roll of duct tape from a maintenance procedure.

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message

The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture when a
50¢ Harbor Freight camera would do.

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap,
tiny cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras probably
wouldn't stand up to crossing the sound barrier (or maybe even
crossing the street!), etc.

Sounds like you buy into that get what you pay for business. Just
duct tape some of the scrap windshield material over the lens.

I'd take a plexiglas bubble skylight, cut a hole in the cockpit floor
and mount foot stirrups so the pilot could hang upside while taking
off or landing. Sort of like the domes used for ball turret gunners.
It would be an extra encouragement to keep the plane from landing so
hard it collapses the landing gear.

I gotta admit when I saw that drooping nose I thought - I'll bet there
are a few more "failure points" in the Concorde than in normal-nosed
airplanes. Oddly enough, in its mostly fatal crash, the pilot ran over
something on the runaway. Something they probably couldn't see.

--
Bobby G.



Probably a roll of duct tape from a maintenance procedure.

I thought it was a can of WD-40 used to grease the nose-drooping mechanism.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in
:


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Red Green" wrote in message

The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and
landing.

Rube Goldberg. How many $M for engineering then manufacture
when a 50¢ Harbor Freight camera would do.

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap,
tiny cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras
probably wouldn't stand up to crossing the sound barrier (or
maybe even crossing the street!), etc.

Sounds like you buy into that get what you pay for business. Just
duct tape some of the scrap windshield material over the lens.

I'd take a plexiglas bubble skylight, cut a hole in the cockpit
floor and mount foot stirrups so the pilot could hang upside while
taking off or landing. Sort of like the domes used for ball turret
gunners. It would be an extra encouragement to keep the plane from
landing so hard it collapses the landing gear.

I gotta admit when I saw that drooping nose I thought - I'll bet
there are a few more "failure points" in the Concorde than in
normal-nosed airplanes. Oddly enough, in its mostly fatal crash,
the pilot ran over something on the runaway. Something they
probably couldn't see.

--
Bobby G.



Probably a roll of duct tape from a maintenance procedure.

I thought it was a can of WD-40 used to grease the nose-drooping
mechanism.

--
Bobby G.




Uh oh! Here we go with the lubricant/water displacement thread.