http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."



--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

But it would be 'a bit more than a quarter of'...!

Well, perhaps.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:

On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

But it would be 'a bit more than a quarter of'...!
Well, perhaps.

"nearly four times less" might be taken as "more than a quarter of", but
in fact the 100W equivalent lamp takes 23W, so they might have meant to
say "over four times less" ...

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

The worst of the stupids cant handle fractions.

On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

"Four times" sounds to the average BBC-using punter a much more
powerful (sic) and positive word than "a quarter", IYSWIM.

--
Frank Erskine

On Tue, 08 May 2012 23:53:49 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

"Four times" sounds to the average BBC-using punter a much more
powerful (sic) and positive word than "a quarter", IYSWIM.

What's that in bus lengths?

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
On Tue, 08 May 2012 23:53:49 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

"Four times" sounds to the average BBC-using punter a much more
powerful (sic) and positive word than "a quarter", IYSWIM.

What's that in bus lengths?

African or european?

--
geoff

In message , geoff
writes
In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
On Tue, 08 May 2012 23:53:49 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

"Four times" sounds to the average BBC-using punter a much more
powerful (sic) and positive word than "a quarter", IYSWIM.

What's that in bus lengths?

African or european?

Flexible
--
hugh

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927
"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

"Four times" sounds to the average BBC-using punter a much more
powerful (sic) and positive word than "a quarter", IYSWIM.

The report on the R4 5pm programme about the new turbine site in Wales
was utterly biased towards environmentalism. Utterly. Listen to it on
iPlayer.

Bill

On Wed, 09 May 2012 02:19:07 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

The report on the R4 5pm programme about the new turbine site in Wales
was utterly biased towards environmentalism. Utterly. Listen to it on
iPlayer.

So is the online written report. But what do you expect? "Reporters"
these days only regurgitate press releases rather than do any work
looking behind the story, checking facts or making sure there is no
bias in the information they have been given.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/05/2012 08:38, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 02:19:07 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

The report on the R4 5pm programme about the new turbine site in Wales
was utterly biased towards environmentalism. Utterly. Listen to it on
iPlayer.

So is the online written report. But what do you expect? "Reporters"
these days only regurgitate press releases rather than do any work
looking behind the story, checking facts or making sure there is no
bias in the information they have been given.


critcher said..................................
these wind farms are a waste of money and resources,
if the money spent on wind farms had been spent on a severn barrage
we would have a source of energy far superior to wind farms, and a way
of controlling tides in the severn estuary,therefore also controlling
any global warming sea water depth increases.
At the moment there will be a massive amount to be spent on sea wall
defences in the estuary if the scenario of increased depth comes true.
Also factor in the amount of work and therefore employment to build the
barrage and the tax and revenue from this. In the future we will rue the
day the barrage was killed off.
Forgot to mention the road services between Wales and South West England
and the recreational services of a large area of water.

I'm surprised they did not put up to four times less, which of course would
be completely meaningless.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a quarter
of'?

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
I'm surprised they did not put up to four times less, which of course would
be completely meaningless.
Brian

What's the difference between "meaningless" and completely meaningless"
--
hugh

hugh ]:

What's the difference between "meaningless" and completely meaningless"

completely meaningless has four times less meaning than meaningless

--
Mike Barnes

In message , Mike Barnes
writes
hugh ]:

What's the difference between "meaningless" and completely meaningless"

completely meaningless has four times less meaning than meaningless

LOL
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , Brian Gaff
writes
I'm surprised they did not put up to four times less, which of course
would
be completely meaningless.
Brian

What's the difference between "meaningless" and completely meaningless"

You get more 'closure' from completely meaningless.

You stop grieving over and worrying about the fact that there is no
meaning.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100
Andy Burns wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly
four times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a
quarter of'?

Thank you. I started a thread last year about this, and I still hear
this meaningless drivel used everywhere.
"Off with their Heads", I say.
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100
Andy Burns wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly
four times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a
quarter of'?

Thank you. I started a thread last year about this, and I still hear
this meaningless drivel used everywhere.
"Off with their Heads", I say.

ISTR Mike Tomlinson did a "US introduces $60 LED light bulb" thread at the
end of last month when he linked to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17788178.

Same story. Different packaging but now available for only $50. Have the
Beeb got a problem with their technology reporter? Does he have an obsession
with expensive LED lamps?

Last year I broke a Google groups thread (1000 posts) when I posted about a
set of ******* that were testing an electric bus ran out of diesel on the
motorway.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
Davey wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 22:38:36 +0100
Andy Burns wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927
"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly
four times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a
quarter of'?
Thank you. I started a thread last year about this, and I still hear
this meaningless drivel used everywhere.
"Off with their Heads", I say.

ISTR Mike Tomlinson did a "US introduces $60 LED light bulb" thread at the
end of last month when he linked to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17788178.

Same story. Different packaging but now available for only $50. Have the
Beeb got a problem with their technology reporter? Does he have an obsession
with expensive LED lamps?

Last year I broke a Google groups thread (1000 posts) when I posted about a
set of ******* that were testing an electric bus ran out of diesel on the
motorway.

If you want an expensive lamp, I saw a LED headlamp to retrofit to a
Land Rover of some sort advertised for £517.50 a pair or so in a
magazine today.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Andy
Burns writes
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a
quarter of'?
4x less is meaningless.
--
hugh

On Wed, 9 May 2012 23:28:36 +0100, hugh wrote:

In message , Andy
Burns writes
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a
quarter of'?
4x less is meaningless.

I despise "up to a 100% flake-free" - there's either zero flakes or 1+, so
it's actually 100% or 0% flake-free with nowt between.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

In message , PeterC
writes
On Wed, 9 May 2012 23:28:36 +0100, hugh wrote:

In message , Andy
Burns writes
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"equivalent to a 100-watt incandescent bulb while consuming nearly four
times less energy"

WTF does 'four times less' mean? What's wrong with 'less than a
quarter of'?
4x less is meaningless.

I despise "up to a 100% flake-free" - there's either zero flakes or 1+, so
it's actually 100% or 0% flake-free with nowt between.
If there's only 1 it's almost unique :-)
--
hugh

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."



--
Adam

WTF Four times less. Four times what ? (4 x less = ???)

BBC who were once so proud of their received english

Right up there with 'Plug out' Ugly, ugly ugly lazy expression. WTF is wrong with UNplug ??

And apart from all that are we really supposed to believe this manufacturers regurgitated press hand out ?

On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT), fred
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."



--
Adam

WTF Four times less. Four times what ? (4 x less = ???)

BBC who were once so proud of their received english

Right up there with 'Plug out' Ugly, ugly ugly lazy expression. WTF is wrong with UNplug ??

And apart from all that are we really supposed to believe this manufacturers regurgitated press hand out ?

What annoys me is the assertion that any contiguous group of 10 years
is a decade, which of course is wrong.



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In message , Graham.
writes
On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT), fred
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."



--
Adam

WTF Four times less. Four times what ? (4 x less = ???)

BBC who were once so proud of their received english

Right up there with 'Plug out' Ugly, ugly ugly lazy expression. WTF is
wrong with UNplug ??

And apart from all that are we really supposed to believe this
manufacturers regurgitated press hand out ?

What annoys me is the assertion that any contiguous group of 10 years
is a decade, which of course is wrong.



And the first day of the new millennium was 1st Jan 2001 - but then the
BBC ****wits put out a program called Year Zero AD
--
hugh

On Wed, 9 May 2012 23:36:47 +0100, hugh wrote:

In message , Graham.
writes
On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:41:57 -0700 (PDT), fred
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."



--
Adam

WTF Four times less. Four times what ? (4 x less = ???)

BBC who were once so proud of their received english

Right up there with 'Plug out' Ugly, ugly ugly lazy expression. WTF is
wrong with UNplug ??

And apart from all that are we really supposed to believe this
manufacturers regurgitated press hand out ?

What annoys me is the assertion that any contiguous group of 10 years
is a decade, which of course is wrong.



And the first day of the new millennium was 1st Jan 2001 - but then the
BBC ****wits put out a program called Year Zero AD

Well, up until 24:00h on Dec. 31st. it is year zero; immediately after that
time it becomes Year One. When 'D' actually occured is another matter (ISTR
about 4 BC!).
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 10/05/2012 13:28, PeterC wrote:
Well, up until 24:00h on Dec. 31st. it is year zero; immediately after that
time it becomes Year One. When 'D' actually occured is another matter (ISTR
about 4 BC!).

Actually, 23:59 31st Dec 1 BC is followed a couple of minutes later by
00:01 1st Jan 1 AD. There's no year zero.

I'll leave the definition of the midnight in between as an exercise for
the student

Andy

fred writes:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:35:14 PM UTC+1, wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."



--
Adam

WTF Four times less. Four times what ? (4 x less = ???)

BBC who were once so proud of their received english

Right up there with 'Plug out' Ugly, ugly ugly lazy expression. WTF is wrong with UNplug ??

And apart from all that are we really supposed to believe this manufacturers regurgitated press hand out ?

They did say some time ago that their journalists were being laid off,
presumably as punishement for saying things the gummint didn't like.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 2012-05-08, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."

Quote:

GE, for example, uses what is called an active "synthetic jet"
technology that produces an air flow inside the lamp, pulling the
hot air out and creating a cooling air current.

Is that like a cooling fan?

On 09/05/2012 12:06, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-08, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17992927

"All three bulbs are meant to last more than 20 years, if used about three
hours per day."

I love the phrase "meant to last" - presumably a claim weak enough that
it cannot be legally enforced when the capacitors deteriorate and fail
after about 5 years. Yes the active LEDs will last for 100000 hours, but
the control electronics will cook itself to oblivion sooner.

I love the unqualified claim by their blatherer in chief that LED ar the
most efficient source of light. A claim which isn't even remotely true.
HPS and SOX are both capable of much higher lumens per watt even if the
light they produce is not exactly pure white (and in the second case
almost monochromatic orange yellow).

Quote:

GE, for example, uses what is called an active "synthetic jet"
technology that produces an air flow inside the lamp, pulling the
hot air out and creating a cooling air current.

Is that like a cooling fan?

I think the old word was "chimney". But that didn't sound sexy enough to
the marketing droids so they invented "synthetic jet".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
Yes the active LEDs will last for 100000 hours, but
the control electronics will cook itself to oblivion sooner.

The life of LEDs reduces the harder they are driven. Signal ones may well
last 'forever'. but not high power ones.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/05/2012 12:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Martin wrote:

Yes the active LEDs will last for 100000 hours, but
the control electronics will cook itself to oblivion sooner.

The life of LEDs reduces the harder they are driven. Signal ones may well
last 'forever'. but not high power ones.

They degrade relatively gracefully provided that you can shunt the heat
away from the junction fast enough. That is the *BIG* problem with
retrofitting them to existing luminaires. The entire light fitting has
to be redesigned to make it LED friendly or they will cook.

One thing that really puzzles me is why LEDs have not completely taken
over the job of lighting domestic fridges yet. Commercial supermarket
freezers have been using them for some time now.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Martin wrote

Yes the active LEDs will last for 100000 hours, but
the control electronics will cook itself to oblivion sooner.

The life of LEDs reduces the harder they are driven. Signal ones may well
last 'forever'. but not high power ones.

They degrade relatively gracefully provided that you can shunt the heat
away from the junction fast enough. That is the *BIG* problem with
retrofitting them to existing luminaires. The entire light fitting has to
be redesigned to make it LED friendly or they will cook.

One thing that really puzzles me is why LEDs have not completely taken
over the job of lighting domestic fridges yet. Commercial supermarket
freezers have been using them for some time now.

Presumably because the conventional lights in domestic fridges
fail so rarely that its no big deal.

Commercial fridges have to have the light on all the time, domestic fridges
don't.

On 2012-05-09, Martin Brown wrote:

On 09/05/2012 12:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The life of LEDs reduces the harder they are driven. Signal ones may well
last 'forever'. but not high power ones.

They degrade relatively gracefully provided that you can shunt the heat
away from the junction fast enough. That is the *BIG* problem with
retrofitting them to existing luminaires. The entire light fitting has
to be redesigned to make it LED friendly or they will cook.

One thing that really puzzles me is why LEDs have not completely taken
over the job of lighting domestic fridges yet. Commercial supermarket
freezers have been using them for some time now.

The fridge-freezer we got around 6 months ago has an LED inside the
fridge. The manual says something to the effect that it should last
practically forever, but if it doesn't, you're stuffed because it's
not replaceable.