(10) Technologies That Deserve To Die

I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..."
i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more
without it. i.e. it performed better. :)

Cheers!
Rich

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.
Click to expand...
 
Some outfit apparently called "Jinn Lighting" is making an FCL22,
albeit it's only 8" OD. There's a magnifier lamp right next to me.
Y'know, the kind with the clamp and articulated arm, like a big
Luxo?

Cheers!
Rich

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

And, then there is the fire hazard. I had a lamp fixture burned
severly when one of those nice little compact fluorescent replacements
for an incandescent bulb failed. It was a "Lights of America" brand...
real garbage. I have yet to have one that lasted as long as they
are advertised to last.


I bought two of their halo bulbs (which they apparently don't sell any
more); one broke _by itself_ in a floor lamp, the other was in a table
lamp for a couple years and now is going strong on my nightstand nine
years later. The nightstand lamp does the usual very intermittent
service but starts as quickly as the best of them. Go figure...

I think it's just inconsistent Q.C. on their part.

Mark L. Fergerson
Click to expand...
 
It Ain't Rocket Science.

-$250.00 initial investment for install: balance = -250.
+$100.00 savings on first month's electric bill: balance = -150.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = -50.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +50.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +150.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +250.00

etc.



ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:


hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.


I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?
Click to expand...
 
"Rich Grise" <spamdump@aol.com> wrote in message
news:CCKmb.2869$RQ1.1663@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..."
i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more
without it. i.e. it performed better. :)

Cheers!
Rich

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.
Click to expand...
It wasn't intended to be cryptic :) ATF works better with whale oil extracts
in and they break more often without it. It was used in ATF, it may also
have been used in hypoys, I don't know about that.
 
In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...
oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?
Click to expand...
How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
In article <CCKmb.2869$RQ1.1663@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
spamdump@aol.com mentioned...
I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..."
i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more
without it. i.e. it performed better. :)

Cheers!
Rich

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't read the above URL, did you. Duh.

Oh, yeah, now I see. Forget I said that. It was a total waste of
time. Ignore it. I don't need to wear my asbestos underwear right
now. (no wonder my a$$hole filter didn't catch that, it was from a
previous followup.)

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
In article <ZFMmb.23$B%3.141613@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>,
mjolinor@hotmail.com mentioned...
"Rich Grise" <spamdump@aol.com> wrote in message
news:CCKmb.2869$RQ1.1663@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..."
i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more
without it. i.e. it performed better. :)

Cheers!
Rich

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.


It wasn't intended to be cryptic :) ATF works better with whale oil extracts
in and they break more often without it. It was used in ATF, it may also
have been used in hypoys, I don't know about that.
Click to expand...
A guy I worked for long ago told me an interesting story. For years,
Chrysler cars had the automatic trans with the torque converter which
performed better than others. Rolls Royce decided (finally) that it
was time to replace their manual 'gearbox' with an automatic, so they
chose the Chrysler design. They saw the bumps and imperfections on
the castings of Chrysler's trans and in their zeal for perfection,
removed them. But the trans would not work as well, so they had to
leave the bumps and imperfections in.

I don't know if this was true or any of the details (hey, it's been
a few decades), only that this guy was knowledgeable about such
things, and wouldn't tell a tall tale. Just wondering of others had
ever heard of such a thing.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
DarkMatter wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.
Click to expand...
It was the principal component of ATF fluid in the 1950's. It was also
the principal component of watch and small instrument lubricant just
about forever. It had the advantage in watches that it didn't wick out
of the jewels and leave the bearings dry.

In auto transmissions, it had the advantage in that it stayed thin even
in cold temperatures.

The big disadvantage, outside of the inhumane killing of sperm whales,
was it goes rancid. When it does, WOW! does it go rancid! Rancid
whale oil is quite acid, and corrodes things pretty badly.

-Chuck Harris
 
In article <bngkfo$22s$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, cfharris@erols.com
mentioned...
DarkMatter wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.

It was the principal component of ATF fluid in the 1950's. It was also
the principal component of watch and small instrument lubricant just
about forever. It had the advantage in watches that it didn't wick out
of the jewels and leave the bearings dry.

In auto transmissions, it had the advantage in that it stayed thin even
in cold temperatures.

The big disadvantage, outside of the inhumane killing of sperm whales,
was it goes rancid. When it does, WOW! does it go rancid! Rancid
whale oil is quite acid, and corrodes things pretty badly.
Click to expand...
Good reason to make bearings out of jewels!

-Chuck Harris
Click to expand...

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:22:10 GMT, Rich Grise <spamdump@aol.com> Gave
us:

I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..."
i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more
without it. i.e. it performed better. :)

Cheers!
Rich
Click to expand...
That is correct. Good catch. The only flaw being that you top
posted the reply. Doh!
 
Watson A.Name - Watt Sun wrote:

The big disadvantage, outside of the inhumane killing of sperm whales,
was it goes rancid. When it does, WOW! does it go rancid! Rancid
whale oil is quite acid, and corrodes things pretty badly.


Good reason to make bearings out of jewels!
Click to expand...
The jewel survives, but the hardened steel pivot gets rusted
up and ruined. Jewels are very easy to replace, pivots are
not.

-Chuck Harris
 
In article <MPG.1a0562d79ea64823989832@news.dslextreme.com>, Watson
A.Name - "Watt Sun" wrote:
In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of lighting for a home, but not totally impossibly
ridiculous. With a somewhat high-side home electricity cost (in the USA)
of 12 cents per KWH, $100 per month in lighting savings means that average
power consumption for lighting was reduced by approx. 1.16 kiliwatts.
This could mean that there used to be - averaged over 24 hours - 1500
watts of incandescents being on, replaced by 374 watts of compact
fluorescents being on.
1500 watts 24-hour average does seem to me to be a lot of incandescent
lighting for a home.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.
Click to expand...
Possible, but not usual. I thought a fridge that cost $30/month to
operate was pretty bad, while a good one would cost (guesstimating from
fuzzy memory) about $6 a month. There may be a fair number of fridges
still in use that cost $15/month more than modern replacements would (do
you see a return on investment here?).

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
<alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...


oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.
Click to expand...
My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.
 
In article <bnh0dl$1ag$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, cfharris@erols.com
mentioned...
Watson A.Name - Watt Sun wrote:


The big disadvantage, outside of the inhumane killing of sperm whales,
was it goes rancid. When it does, WOW! does it go rancid! Rancid
whale oil is quite acid, and corrodes things pretty badly.


Good reason to make bearings out of jewels!

The jewel survives, but the hardened steel pivot gets rusted
up and ruined. Jewels are very easy to replace, pivots are
not.
Click to expand...
Oh. Hokay. Looks like I'm way outta electronics territory. I worked
for a guy who was trained as a horologist, but ended up working and
retiring from McDonnell Douglas. Go figure.

-Chuck Harris
Click to expand...

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
In article <slrnbpo2hj.gfn.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
mentioned...
In article <MPG.1a0562d79ea64823989832@news.dslextreme.com>, Watson
A.Name - "Watt Sun" wrote:
In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

That's a lot of lighting for a home, but not totally impossibly
ridiculous. With a somewhat high-side home electricity cost (in the USA)
of 12 cents per KWH, $100 per month in lighting savings means that average
power consumption for lighting was reduced by approx. 1.16 kiliwatts.
This could mean that there used to be - averaged over 24 hours - 1500
watts of incandescents being on, replaced by 374 watts of compact
fluorescents being on.
1500 watts 24-hour average does seem to me to be a lot of incandescent
lighting for a home.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

Possible, but not usual. I thought a fridge that cost $30/month to
operate was pretty bad, while a good one would cost (guesstimating from
fuzzy memory) about $6 a month. There may be a fair number of fridges
still in use that cost $15/month more than modern replacements would (do
you see a return on investment here?).
Click to expand...
I see your point. But ask Jim T, who lives out there in the Arizona
Desert, what his electric bill is. See, some people _have_ to use air
conditioning. If they reduce the electric consumption inside the
house, the a/c has less work to do to get rid of the heat inaide the
house. So the overal savings is greater than the light consumption
alone. What that extra amount is, I couldn't tell you. But it *is*
really there. And in a case of a home that has central air, it could
be substantial.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Click to expand...
--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
In article <umqnpvgfblbnd60e4uobkjfnfb36q1eecd@4ax.com>,
soundguy2@worldnet.att.net mentioned...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...


oldsoundguy wrote:

hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.

I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?

How do you know that? He could have an electric bill that's over a
thousand dollars, in which case a hundred dollar savings would be a
drop in the bucket, easily attainable.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.
Click to expand...
And on top of that, some municipalities and electric co's give a
rebate that can help out, and is worth applying for.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:47:08 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
<alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <slrnbpo2hj.gfn.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
mentioned...
[snip]
A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

Possible, but not usual. I thought a fridge that cost $30/month to
operate was pretty bad, while a good one would cost (guesstimating from
fuzzy memory) about $6 a month. There may be a fair number of fridges
still in use that cost $15/month more than modern replacements would (do
you see a return on investment here?).

I see your point. But ask Jim T, who lives out there in the Arizona
Desert, what his electric bill is. See, some people _have_ to use air
conditioning. If they reduce the electric consumption inside the
house, the a/c has less work to do to get rid of the heat inaide the
house. So the overal savings is greater than the light consumption
alone. What that extra amount is, I couldn't tell you. But it *is*
really there. And in a case of a home that has central air, it could
be substantial.
Click to expand...
Meter read date 9/19/2003: 7136kWh --> $561.35

(Time of use metering: 1779kWh On-Peak, 5357kWh Off-Peak)

Two 60,000Btu A/C units.
Individual SubZero in-wall freezer and refrigerator.
U-Line Wine refrigerator ;-)
Electric kitchen (indoors), propane outside (Spehro has seen it :)
1.5hp pool pump runs 12 hours per day in summer time.
Solar pool heating but electric heat-pump for spa.
Water fall pump running 24/7
Washer + Electric Dryer
5 computers running 24/7
6 TV sets
Salt water fish tank pump runs 24/7
Ceiling fans in every room, most running 24/7
Lots of lighting, all incandescent, except garage. (Lots of interior
lighting is flood lights in ceilings, some as high as 18', so I'm
interested in replacements that have longer life AND high light
output.)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Rich Grise wrote:
It Ain't Rocket Science.

-$250.00 initial investment for install: balance = -250.
+$100.00 savings on first month's electric bill: balance = -150.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = -50.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +50.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +150.00
+$100.00 savings on next month's electric bill: balance = +250.00

etc.
Click to expand...

Your post completely misses the point. He claimed
100 dollar savings for one month. His post implies
that the savings for that month were due to changing
his lights. I asked him for HIS numbers. I want to
see if he really thinks the 100 dollar savings was due
solely to the lighting change, and how he arrives at
that conclusion.


ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:


oldsoundguy wrote:


hmmmmm .. bet you haven't been into a lighting store in a long time.
There are now full spectrum fluroescensts out now .. not terribly
expensive .. I changed over 90% of the lighting in my home to same ..
inital cost with rebates from the local power company was about 200 to
250 usd .. I saved 100 in electrical costs the first month of use.


I do not believe that. Implied is that the 100 dollar savings
was due to the lighting change. Your electric bill may very
well have been 100 dollars lower - but what numbers do you have
concerning how many dollars the lighting change saved you?
Click to expand...
 
"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun" wrote:

In article <ZFMmb.23$B%3.141613@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net>,
mjolinor@hotmail.com mentioned...

"Rich Grise" <spamdump@aol.com> wrote in message
news:CCKmb.2869$RQ1.1663@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I read that as "best thing that happened to ... repairers ..."
i.e. more work for the guys that fix them, i.e. they break more
without it. i.e. it performed better. :)

Cheers!
Rich

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:23:40 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjolinor@hotmail.com
Gave us:


Didja know that at one time GM used whale oil in their transmission
fluids? Weird! http://www.importautoberdoo.com/liquids.html

As did all ATF makers, best thing that ever happened to auto gearbox
repairers when they removed it.



Aside from the fact that it killed whales, why was it the best thing
that ever happened, when they removed it? It actually performed
better.

Also, it was used in the rear end gear, not the transmission.
Automatics used hydraulic fluids. Standard gear boxes and rear end
gears used heavy oils, and this was one. So, NO ATF makers used it in
an ATF fluid. I was used in gear oils.


It wasn't intended to be cryptic :) ATF works better with whale oil extracts
in and they break more often without it. It was used in ATF, it may also
have been used in hypoys, I don't know about that.

A guy I worked for long ago told me an interesting story. For years,
Chrysler cars had the automatic trans with the torque converter which
performed better than others. Rolls Royce decided (finally) that it
was time to replace their manual 'gearbox' with an automatic, so they
chose the Chrysler design. They saw the bumps and imperfections on
the castings of Chrysler's trans and in their zeal for perfection,
removed them. But the trans would not work as well, so they had to
leave the bumps and imperfections in.

I don't know if this was true or any of the details (hey, it's been
a few decades), only that this guy was knowledgeable about such
things, and wouldn't tell a tall tale. Just wondering of others had
ever heard of such a thing.
Click to expand...
A similar fix happened after WW2 when the German V2 rockets were
brought to White Sands. Some had mysterious mods which got applied
to some of the rest. The German workers asked why the changes were
being made, since in Germany these were to facilitate the rockets passage
thru tunnels. These were not required stateside.

The story is buried somewhere in one of my books on rocketry.
Think it may be the one by Willy Ley. Cheers, John Stewart

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
Click to expand...
 
In article <MPG.1a05eea8641e275a98983b@news.dslextreme.com>, Watson
A.Name - "Watt Sun" wrote:
In article <slrnbpo2hj.gfn.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
mentioned...

That's a lot of lighting for a home, but not totally impossibly
ridiculous. With a somewhat high-side home electricity cost (in the
USA) of 12 cents per KWH, $100 per month in lighting savings means that
average power consumption for lighting was reduced by approx. 1.16
kiliwatts. This could mean that there used to be - averaged over 24
hours - 1500 watts of incandescents being on, replaced by 374 watts of
compact fluorescents being on.
1500 watts 24-hour average does seem to me to be a lot of incandescent
lighting for a home.

A lady at work replaced her fridge, and saved $50 the first month.

Possible, but not usual. I thought a fridge that cost $30/month to
operate was pretty bad, while a good one would cost (guesstimating from
fuzzy memory) about $6 a month. There may be a fair number of fridges
still in use that cost $15/month more than modern replacements would (do
you see a return on investment here?).

I see your point. But ask Jim T, who lives out there in the Arizona
Desert, what his electric bill is. See, some people _have_ to use air
conditioning. If they reduce the electric consumption inside the
house, the a/c has less work to do to get rid of the heat inaide the
house. So the overal savings is greater than the light consumption
alone. What that extra amount is, I couldn't tell you. But it *is*
really there. And in a case of a home that has central air, it could
be substantial.
Click to expand...
How much electricity is consumed by air conditioning to pump out a given
amount of heat: 3.4 times the amount of heat (in watts) divided by the
EER. The EER will probably differ a little from what is specified since
it varies with indoor and outdoor temperatures. EER should generally
decrease as temperature difference between indoors and outdoors increases.
I seem to remember that 17 is realy excellent and 14 is fair or good
(that is, the rated EER, which I imagine is under some standard set of
test conditions). If the EER is 10, then you need 34 watts to pump out
100 watts of heat. If your EER is 17, then it takes 20 watts to pump out
100 watts of heat.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top