(10) Technologies That Deserve To Die

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <UMadnWDM-LRXJAOiRVn-vw@buckeye-express.com>, "Mark Jones"
<127.0.0.1> mentioned...

In news:btctpv4trjsdfj8ppkvpqog6fkrsddkrb6@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:02:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In news:kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:



oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:



oldsoundguy wrote:

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...



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.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just
flicker. Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

it is AMAZING how much some people claim to know when they haven't
even TRIED something! ... the bulbs work outside because they are
confined in fixtures that have glass over same and the fixtures are
under cover, mounted to the building wall. Now this has been this way
for two years without a problem .. IF you are above the Artic Circle,
or in the North woods or Northern Maine or In North Dakota or Montana
.. could be they would present a problem. I am NOT in any of those
god forsaken places!!

Well good for you, but for the rest of us who ARE in those god-forsaken
places, then CF's DO NOT WORK outside!

The maint people put some light fixtures in the alley where the
taggers graffiti up the walls. They used some outdoor enclosures with
the long tubular incandescent lights, which last a month or two and
burn out, have to be replaced often, and are big power wasters. They
also used a couple outdoor enclosures with the CFL lights in them,
which seem bright enough, are a lot easier on the electricity, and
haven't burned out in more than a year.

I don't know if these outdoor CFL lights are sold in colder climates,
but here in So. Calif, they're a lot better choice than others, even
if they cost more to begin with, because of the savings in
electricity.

--
@@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@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <m7ftpvcdc4o25ukqg5q6jl6mh856g7apfq@4ax.com>,
invalid@invalid.invalid mentioned...

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:50:04 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In news:btctpv4trjsdfj8ppkvpqog6fkrsddkrb6@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:02:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
[snip]
Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just
flicker. Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

it is AMAZING how much some people claim to know when they haven't
even TRIED something! ... the bulbs work outside because they are
confined in fixtures that have glass over same and the fixtures are
under cover, mounted to the building wall. Now this has been this way
for two years without a problem .. IF you are above the Artic Circle,
or in the North woods or Northern Maine or In North Dakota or Montana
.. could be they would present a problem. I am NOT in any of those
god forsaken places!!

Well good for you, but for the rest of us who ARE in those god-forsaken
places, then CF's DO NOT WORK outside!


What is this "it gets cold" ?

...Jim Thompson

I got shipped to Minneapolis when I was in the army. Now _that's_
cold!


--
@@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@@

 

[Tim Williams]

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:3F9F2DCF.8070204@biz.ness...

I never did figure out why the other one self-destructed;
it just went 'tink' and got dark. The glass had a nice crack
that wound partway around without self-intersecting, and the
guts looked OK upon disassembly. It had worked fine for a
week or so previously, so I didn't buy it broken.

Could be as Don said, or might be they annealed the glass a little
too fast. Glass needs to be cooled slowly after working or it'll
crack up to all heck.

Tim

--
"That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <slrnbpufje.abd.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
mentioned...

In art. <A7adnVpbrOhkvAOiRVn-gA@buckeye-express.com>, Mark Jones wrote:

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just flicker.
Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

How about Philips 18 watt SL/O "Outdoor" "Earth Light"? That one starts
in temperatures down to even a little below zero degrees F, about -20
degrees C.
In windchills as low as a few degrees F (around -15 C), this one warms
up most of the way to full brightness, but may take several minutes to do
so and can start very dim and even start with an "off" pinkish-red color.
In fixtures that protect it from wind, it can warm up most of the way in
temperatures a few degrees above zero F (or -15 degrees C). In enclosed
fixtures, once it starts it can accumulate heat and warm up most of the
way in temperatures a little below zero F (approx. -20 degrees C).
In an enclosed fixture, this one should work outdors in anything short
of the worst couple nights of an average winter of Chicago!

There is at least one lower wattage in the Philips SL/O series, but it
appears to me that specifically the 18 watt one is the good one.

If you want Cf lamps that are good in higher temperatures, then the 15
and 20 watt Philips SLS ones are good. I have seen the 15 watt one dimmed
by drafts, and these two (and not the 23 and 25 watt ones as far as I
know) are rated for use in recessed ceiling fixtures.

For good efficiency in indoor use, any of the above are normally good,
but in favorable environments I believe the Sylvania Dulux EL series does
even better.

For good fit that requires an overall length not much longer than that
of regular incandescents, the spirals do well. Watch for some specific
unreliable models better known by wattage: 25 watts (probably
discontinued by now), which I found prone to dying very young whether of
the the much-maligned (often deservedly so according to my experience)
Lights of America brand, or of the GE brand (one of the "Big Three" and
mostly reputable). There are two sizes of 24 watt, the smaller one of
which is "mini" and I had one of those die young. But most other spirals
seem to do well. My apartment building has had about 4 dozen 15 watt ones
imported by Abco and having the "Westinghouse" brand, and about 40 of them
are still alive after 22 months running 24 hours a day.

Please read these files in my web site:
http://www.misty.com/~don/cf.html (general info, most by Sam Goldwasser)
http://www.misty.com/~don/cfbest.html (test results, many model-specific)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/index.html)

Thanks for the great info, Don. The maint guys put a couple screw-in
CFLs in the hallways in my apt, and some tenant decided he liked them
better than the incandescents and stole them. That's the bad thing
about using a better quality light bulb that fits regular fixtures.
If you use a fixture with a weird light, it can help prevent the
bastards from pilfering you to death. But even with regular four-for-
a-buck incandescents, we've had cheap-ass tenants that steal them from
the laundry room.

--
@@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@@

 

[Rich Grise]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

The bedside lamp unit has an FC8T9WW bulb (even though the label on
the base says 22 watts), the ballast is in the base (the starter is in a
little plastic extension of the bit that covers the gap in the lamp's
circle); you just screw the whole assembly (which is glued together)
into an ordinary mogul socket.

I never did figure out why the other one self-destructed; it just went
'tink' and got dark. The glass had a nice crack that wound partway
around without self-intersecting, and the guts looked OK upon
disassembly. It had worked fine for a week or so previously, so I didn't
buy it broken. I figure I'm getting my money's worth out of the
remaining one.

Mark L. Fergerson

Sounds kinda like the glass stress-releived itself, and let the

magic invisible smoke out!

 

[Chuck Harris]

When the bulb temperature drops from normal room temperature,
the pressure of the mercury vapor inside the bulb drops. As the
pressure of the mercury vapor drops, the voltage necessary to
arc it over and start the plasma (not the right term, I think?)
increases.

Unfortunately, the ballast can only make so much voltage, and if
this arc over voltage exceeds that voltage, the bulb won't light.

The "cold weather" CFIs must be designed to use a higher voltage
for starting... or perhaps they have some kind of starter gas
added to the bulb.

-Chuck

Watson A.Name - Watt Sun wrote:

Is this because the mercury has a difficult time being vaporized when
cold? Anyone know the gory details?

 

[Chuck Harris]

The question better asked is: Why is there so much
heat build up?

I have left my IDEK Iiyama 21" monitor on 24/7 since
1992. It still works very nicely.

-Chuck Harris

Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover wrote:

In article <3F9EFB9F.480B282E@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net mentioned...

Mark Jones wrote:

I should let work know about that... we have 400 screens that are usually
on. Wonder how much that could save?

Not only would you save on electricity, but the monitors might last
long enough to become obsolete before they need replaced. I have picked
up a lot of dead monitors that were barely 18 months old, and they had
been run 24/7 till the electrolytics failed from the heat buildup.


So what's it cost to repair a typical one with dead 'lytics? How many
caps do you have to replace? Is the CRT still okay? Do other caps
fail soon after the repair? Do I ask too many questions? :^)

 

[Gary Tait]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:46:48 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dark
Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the great info, Don. The maint guys put a couple screw-in
CFLs in the hallways in my apt, and some tenant decided he liked them
better than the incandescents and stole them. That's the bad thing
about using a better quality light bulb that fits regular fixtures.
If you use a fixture with a weird light, it can help prevent the
bastards from pilfering you to death. But even with regular four-for-
a-buck incandescents, we've had cheap-ass tenants that steal them from
the laundry room.

I heard of this trick, mark the bulbs/ballasts with an identifier
mark. You could also issue the tenants a couple of CF bulbs each.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Chuck Harris wrote:

The question better asked is: Why is there so much
heat build up?

I have left my IDEK Iiyama 21" monitor on 24/7 since
1992. It still works very nicely.

-Chuck Harris

Some monitors are designed for better airflow, and use parts rated
for higher temperatures. Electrolytics are rated for "X" number of hours
operating at "Y" temperature. So, the more that it is on, the more heat
damage occurs. Take a look at any of the capacitor manufacturers
websites Vishay, CDE, or dozens of others, and you will see at least
three temperature ranges: 85°C 105°C 125°C. Using a higher temperature
part extends the life of monitor, or other equipment. Also, some use
more low ESR parts, which hold up better in some applications. Some are
too cheap to use high frequency rated parts, causing more internal
heating of the electrolyte. This slowly boils away the liquid, which
causes the ESR to rise, and causes more internal heat. Finally, the
capacitor either has too high of an ESR, or the capacitance has dropped
too low to work properly.

--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" wrote:

So what's it cost to repair a typical one with dead 'lytics? How many
caps do you have to replace? Is the CRT still okay? Do other caps
fail soon after the repair? Do I ask too many questions? :^)

It varies quite a bit, from a single bad cap, to every electrolytic in
the monitor. I bought the Dick Smith ESR meter kit, and just make a
sweep through them, looking for bad caps first, then look for other
problems. I am still setting my shop up, but one bench is just to work
on monitors. Generally, I buy the caps by 25 or 100 at a time, and try
to keep what I need in stock.

Never too many questions, as long as the are honest and coherent. ;-)

--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <3F9F2DCF.8070204@biz.ness>, Mark Fergerson wrote:

<snip>

I never did figure out why the other one self-destructed;
it just went 'tink' and got dark. The glass had a nice crack
that wound partway around without self-intersecting, and the
guts looked OK upon disassembly. It had worked fine for a
week or so previously, so I didn't buy it broken. I figure
I'm getting my money's worth out of the remaining one.


Possible design flaw in the fixture building up heat.

Hm. I'd think they'd both die the same death if it were
the fixture, so I lean toward the "badly annealed" idea for
that particular bulb. So if the glass was defective, it's
the supplier's fault, not the mfgr? I feel a lot better now.
NOT.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Jones]

In news:MPG.1a08f0aff92478d989850@news.dslextreme.com (Watson A.Name -
Watt Sun, Dark Remover):

In article <UMadnWDM-LRXJAOiRVn-vw@buckeye-express.com>, "Mark Jones"
127.0.0.1> mentioned...
In news:btctpv4trjsdfj8ppkvpqog6fkrsddkrb6@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:02:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In news:kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:



oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:



oldsoundguy wrote:

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...



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.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath
4 100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story
increasing the amount of lighting at the same time ... converting.
fan lites .. 40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent.
100watt equivalent instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an
back porches. (BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that
good enough? What I was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save
money .. a BUNCH of money over a years time .. plus I have replaced
ONE bulb and exchanged it on the warantee! whereas I used to
replace MOST of the incandescents at least twice a year .. the
quality of workmanship in todays chinese light bulb manufacturing
facilities and sold under almost everyone's label.

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just
flicker. Unless yours are some new, special type,
never-before-seen...

it is AMAZING how much some people claim to know when they haven't
even TRIED something! ... the bulbs work outside because they are
confined in fixtures that have glass over same and the fixtures are
under cover, mounted to the building wall. Now this has been this way
for two years without a problem .. IF you are above the Artic Circle,
or in the North woods or Northern Maine or In North Dakota or Montana
.. could be they would present a problem. I am NOT in any of those
god forsaken places!!

Well good for you, but for the rest of us who ARE in those
god-forsaken places, then CF's DO NOT WORK outside!

The maint people put some light fixtures in the alley where the
taggers graffiti up the walls. They used some outdoor enclosures with
the long tubular incandescent lights, which last a month or two and
burn out, have to be replaced often, and are big power wasters. They
also used a couple outdoor enclosures with the CFL lights in them,
which seem bright enough, are a lot easier on the electricity, and
haven't burned out in more than a year.

I don't know if these outdoor CFL lights are sold in colder climates,
but here in So. Calif, they're a lot better choice than others, even
if they cost more to begin with, because of the savings in
electricity.

Just the other day, I saw a home with a CF in the portch light. It was
probably 45 degrees, and the light was blinking on and off. Like the regular
8-foot fluorescents that go in the garage, they work fine except when it
gets cold. At a certain point (0°F?) they cease to work altogether. Perhaps
that never happens in the SW, but in Ohio, it happens for at least a week a
year.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich Grise wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

I never did figure out why the other one self-destructed; it just
went 'tink' and got dark. The glass had a nice crack that wound
partway around without self-intersecting, and the guts looked OK upon
disassembly. It had worked fine for a week or so previously, so I
didn't buy it broken. I figure I'm getting my money's worth out of the
remaining one.

Mark L. Fergerson

Sounds kinda like the glass stress-releived itself, and let the
magic invisible smoke out!

Could be. I looked prety closely at the remains (for
refraction fungoes that would indicate stress problems) and
didn't see any but it was likely too late. Oh, well.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Lewin A.R.W. Edwards]

The lag of an LCD refresh makes it impossible for movies or games
where the image moves about a lot.

?? What particular kind of crack are you smoking, or rather what kind of LCD
controllers are you using? I watch movies (and play games, for that matter)
on banks of LCD monitors all the time.

--
-- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (http://www.zws.com/)
Learn how to develop high-end embedded systems on a tight budget!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750676094/zws-20

 

[Chuck Harris]

As I said,

The question better asked is: Why is there so much
heat build up?

The answer is: You bought a cheap sh*t monitor!

As to the mechanics of why electrolytics fail, it all
BOILS down to the fact that the monitor wasn't designed
to last very long. The manufacturer/consumer,
could have ponied up to make/buy a good monitor, but they
chose to make/buy junk.

-Chuck

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Chuck Harris wrote:

The question better asked is: Why is there so much
heat build up?

I have left my IDEK Iiyama 21" monitor on 24/7 since
1992. It still works very nicely.

-Chuck Harris


Some monitors are designed for better airflow, and use parts rated
for higher temperatures. Electrolytics are rated for "X" number of hours
operating at "Y" temperature. So, the more that it is on, the more heat
damage occurs. Take a look at any of the capacitor manufacturers
websites Vishay, CDE, or dozens of others, and you will see at least
three temperature ranges: 85°C 105°C 125°C. Using a higher temperature
part extends the life of monitor, or other equipment. Also, some use
more low ESR parts, which hold up better in some applications. Some are
too cheap to use high frequency rated parts, causing more internal
heating of the electrolyte. This slowly boils away the liquid, which
causes the ESR to rise, and causes more internal heat. Finally, the
capacitor either has too high of an ESR, or the capacitance has dropped
too low to work properly.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Chuck Harris wrote:

As I said,

The question better asked is: Why is there so much
heat build up?

The answer is: You bought a cheap sh*t monitor!

As to the mechanics of why electrolytics fail, it all
BOILS down to the fact that the monitor wasn't designed
to last very long. The manufacturer/consumer,
could have ponied up to make/buy a good monitor, but they
chose to make/buy junk.

-Chuck

No, I didn't buy a cheap monitor. The place I was working had leased
a bunch of computers, and the monitors they supplied, died. That
included three Sony 21" monitors used on their CAD stations. They gave
me about 35 dead, or dying monitors after the lease ran out, the the
company didn't want any of their dead equipment back. I have been
repairing and using old monitors for over 20 years. So far i have bought
only one new monitor, and the CRT shorted when it was three years old.
It didn't have a lot of hours on it, and had a very sharp image. It is
the next in line to go to the monitor bench.

--


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[repatch]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:m25jpvob40gutqcj6l23ggk3uqim140bih@4ax.com...

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:34:43 GMT, oldsoundguy
soundguy2@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:32:29 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"Lizard Blizzard" <NOSPAM@rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:bnbdkc$4jp12$1@hades.csu.net...
4. INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS
...
But it's still a far cry from the glories of natural daylight.

I say it's pretty darn good. Can't beat the wide, natural spectrum of
random thermal noise! Only difference between that and the sun is it's
hotter (and is mostly hydrogen and helium glowing), and has travelled
through 1AU of space and the Earth's atmosphere.

Plus there's the cost of light bulbs, their fragility, the replacement
overhead, the vast waste of energy, glass, and tungsten, the goofy ...

Lamps as we know them today are amazingly rugged. Very thin glass, yet
I've dropped one onto a sidewalk from 10' up and it still didn't break!
Fluorescents, OTOH, are extremely fragile; I've broken one falling just
2' onto a table. And there was some paper there to pad its fall.

They will be replaced by a superior technology, something cheap, cool,
and precisely engineered, that emits visible wavelengths genuinely
suited to a consumer's human eyeball.

If you ask me, incandescents have got it down... show me a fluorescent
with that spectrum and I'll buy it.

Besides all this, what does the writer propose to replace it with?
Fluorescents don't fit because of what I just said. They are also
economically unfeasable, although some of the small devices have made
headway into such existing installations. Any other technology, say
electroluminescent whatever, or LEDs, is way off from this day in time
for a variety of reasons.

Tim
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.

The trouble with CF lamps is that they're all so bright! If you want
to replace a 15 or 25 watt incandescent in a small lamp or something,
all the available CFs are blinding! I think that they all want to make
the point of how efficient they are.

Not as efficient as you might think, many have power factors of 0.5 or
worse. TTYL

 

[Mark Jones]

In news:EEidnWmzKYd8YQKiU-KYiw@broadviewnet.net (Lewin A.R.W. Edwards):

The lag of an LCD refresh makes it impossible for movies or games
where the image moves about a lot.

?? What particular kind of crack are you smoking, or rather what kind
of LCD controllers are you using? I watch movies (and play games, for
that matter) on banks of LCD monitors all the time.

Perhaps the TN and STN (super-twisted nematic) LCD's suffer from slow
refresh, but the newest color LCD's are much better. I like my 19" Panasonic
S70, been a great monitor over the years. Last time I was looking at
flat-panels, they seemed quite nice (and fast.) Not sure about that "missing
pixel" thing though. I kinda enjoy having all my pixels working.

Anyone else see a new report about an electronic "billboard?" Apparently
engineers have been working on a reflective material like paper, but with
thousands of bit-mapped electronic "bubbles" imbedded within which can be
turned on/off with a small current. Which "cells" are turned on determines
the location of the bubble, and hence the color. Or something like that.

 

[JW]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:46:08 -0500 "Lewin A.R.W. Edwards"
<larwe@larwe.com> wrote in Message id:
<EEidnWmzKYd8YQKiU-KYiw@broadviewnet.net>:

The lag of an LCD refresh makes it impossible for movies or games
where the image moves about a lot.

?? What particular kind of crack are you smoking

Any kind DarkSplatter can get his grubby hands on, I'd say.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:45:29 -0500, the renowned "Mark Jones"
<127.0.0.1> wrote:

Anyone else see a new report about an electronic "billboard?" Apparently
engineers have been working on a reflective material like paper, but with
thousands of bit-mapped electronic "bubbles" imbedded within which can be
turned on/off with a small current. Which "cells" are turned on determines
the location of the bubble, and hence the color. Or something like that.

E-ink in Cambridge MA (USofA) developed this technology (or something
like it). The demo I saw a few years ago was fairly primitive-
monochrome, relatively large grained without active devices, and thus
required a lot of drivers. Passive matrices are not pleasant to drive.
They were working on amorphous devices printed along with the display,
but it looked to be a ways off.

One of the nice things about it is that it is fairly high contrast,
reflective, and non-volatile, so that once something is written to the
display it stays visible with no energy consumption. Potentially ideal
for e-books and such like, though nowhere near the resolution and
color (before we even start talking cost constraints) that would be
required to start thinking about replacing 4-color printing.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com