Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

Of course all the rail yards here are now built over with expensive apartment blocks.

I doubt thats true of all of them.

I assure you it pretty much damn well is.

You're just plain wrong. As you admit in your next sentence.

I was being liberal with my words. More of a joke if you like.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

But I am serious too. Just happened in my own town.

Sure, its obviously happened, I was JUST commenting on your ALL claim.

Or they're now the car parks for the commuters who use the trains.

Thats easily reversed if that is desirable.

So where do the commuters park then ?

Wherever they choose to build another multistory carpark. Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

Rail makes most of its money from transporting PEOPLE in Europe.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Freight is a drop in the ocean.

It is currently. That may not be true forever if the cost of transport fuels increases dramatically.

It may well make sense in future to move quite a bit of freight using containers by electricity powered rail.

AFAIK you can no longer send an ordinary parcel by train in the UK.
It's contract only for heavy loads.

It would be easy to move containers by rail and then by local truck to
say supermarkets etc if the transport fuel costs make that worth doing tho.

It's been tried and found wanting.

Its been tried and continues to be done that way in quite a few countrys.

Large rail yards are too far spread for one thing for it to be practical

Have fun explaining how come they work fine in some places.

and slow freight trains hold up the profitable commuter and long-distance express trains.

They dont have to. The freight can be moved when there isnt the commuter and express volume.

And do that with parcels to the post office/courier office too.

They have their own parcels van service that transfers to big trucks at distribution centres.

And it may make sense to move that stuff using rail in future when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

Why would they kill a fast and successful service ?

Because rail costs a lot less to move that freight.

There are several companies doing this in fact. I can think of 6 instantly.

Irrelevant to what makes sense when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail if
only because sooner or later trains will electrify and
a lot or most long haul trucking will disappear.

Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive

It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.

Wrong, as always. Not much freight moves using rail in northern europe.

True. Even the Royal Mail (British Post Office) moved to trucks only a year or so ago.

But that may change if the cost of transport fuel gets a lot higher.

Those are electrified for passengers, stupid.

Spot on. Especially around London and other large cities.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Bret Cahill wrote

But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail if only
because sooner or later trains will electrify and a lot or most
long haul trucking will disappear.

Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive

It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.

Land and (relatively) labour was cheap then too. That's how France
laid the majority of the TGV system without it costing a fortune.

The cost of the sort of land that that uses mostly hasnt increased all that much.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <6hnlskFn61prU1@mid.individual.net>, Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully , which make it very inconvenient to use.

Wow. I haven't had a crappy CFL like that in years. At the time it was
a Philips lamp. All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not. Those Philips lamps OTOH were very dim at first.

Modern Philips ones in the UK are fine.

** Absolute BULLSHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buy a Philips "Ambience" CFL and see just how horribly slow they are.

That's not what they sell here.

** What a blatant, fucking LIAR you are:

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20Ambiance.htm

That is one with an outer bulb. Those normally start dimmer and need
more time to warm up.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <529b4d55-6da6-4d35-b846-490d122a8aa1@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:

mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten fully,
which make it very inconvenient to use.
Can any members help me to explain this phenomenon ? Thank You.

Wow. I haven't had a crappy CFL like that in years. At the time it was
a Philips lamp. All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not. Those Philips lamps OTOH were very dim at first.

CFLs generally get hot, and need to be formulated to be most efficient
when they have stabilized in temperature.
They are sensitive to temperature, by being dependent on mercury vapor
producing 254 nm UV. Too cold, and there is not enough mercury vapor.
Too hot, and the mercury vapor absorbs 254 nm UV.

Many CFLs have the mercury formulated into an amalgam so as to achieve
optimum concentration of mercury vapor when the CFL has warmed up.

CFLs with outer bulbs have their tubing getting even hotter - so there
is even more need for warmup. On the other hand, those actually do well
over a wider temperature range once they warm up - and include most
advised for outdoor use.

If you want CFLs that start brighter and have less need to warm up, go
for ones with bare tubing rather than outer bulbs, and try for ones with
larger tubing and larger overall size for their wattage. Ones with 15 mm
tubing often start at half or a little over half of full brightness.

Ones with bare tubing warm up faster than ones with outer bulbs. If
the design is for greater compactness and need for more warmup, then at
least that will occur faster.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Phil Allison]

"Don Klipstein"


** Try following the context - asshole.




...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Don Klipstein"

Buy a Philips "Ambience" CFL and see just how horribly slow they are.


That is one with an outer bulb. Those normally start dimmer and need
more time to warm up.

** Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us ?



....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Don Klipstein"

** Philips "Tornado" spiral CFLs are also VERY SLOW to light up fully.

Even with a room temp of 20C they take about 3 minutes.


Here in USA, I have yet to see a spiral CFL having any reference other
than yours as "Tornado",

** Could be sold under a different name in the USA.

and I have yet to have a CFL with bare tubing
fail to be a majority of the way warmed up in 1 minute from 18 C or above.

** What you have NOT seen is NOT any kind of information.

Rooms are often colder than 18C and 1 minute to reach half brightness is an
annoying wait or even dangerous in many situations.



..... Phil

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <6hnluiFn4djlU1@mid.individual.net>, Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
mowhoong wrote:

When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten fully ,

Depends on brand and model. I know some that are as close to 'instant
on' at close to full brightness as you could reasonably expect. It does
get worse as they age though.

You're either talking about old technology ones or very cheap crap.

I buy Philips or Osram (Sylvania in the USA IIRC).

** Philips "Tornado" spiral CFLs are also VERY SLOW to light up fully.

Even with a room temp of 20C they take about 3 minutes.

Haven't seen those ones. At least not that style by Philips.

** Open you fucking eyes - asshole.

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm

My experience in USA is that CFLs of that style are a majority of the
way warmed up in 30-45 seconds if ambient is at least 18 C - both for
Philips ones and non-Philips ones.

You also dredged up something from 2004 - but then again, I have
purchased bare spirals in 2002 and found them even then to
most-of-the-way warm up in less than a minute. I even have Philips bare
spirals, and none took a full minute to get a majority of the way warmed
up!

Also, in ambient 18 C or warmer, my experience is that bare spirals
start a lot brighter than "one candle"! A few with outer bulbs can start
as low as close to 4 candles (9 watt ceiling fan CFLs with outer bulbs),
and bare spiral ones in my experience do at least a majority of an order
of magnitude better than this!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <6hnh8mFmlileU1@mid.individual.net>, Phil Allison wrote:

stratus46@yahoo.com
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully ,
which make it very inconvenient to use.
Can any members help me to explain this phenomenon ? Thank You.


Wow. I haven't had a crappy CFL like that in years. At the time it was
a Philips lamp. All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not. Those Philips lamps OTOH were very dim at first.


** Philips ( and many others) still sell very slow starting CFLs.

Their " Ambiance " range ( which look juts like normal peal bulbs) are all
very slow - ie, several minutes to reach full output on a cold morning.
The initial light level is about the same as one candle.

No use in a kitchen or bathroom - at all.

On the contrary for bathrooms - I like lights there to start at well
below full brightness and then warm up.

And when I am going into the kitchen and need full bright light, I am
going to be there for a while and can wait a minute for full light.

If you want faster warmup and brighter starting, get the more common
ones with bare tubing.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <6hnhi4Fn35faU1@mid.individual.net>, Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
mowhoong wrote:

When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten fully ,

Depends on brand and model. I know some that are as close to 'instant
on' at close to full brightness as you could reasonably expect. It does
get worse as they age though.

You're either talking about old technology ones or very cheap crap.

I buy Philips or Osram (Sylvania in the USA IIRC).

** Philips "Tornado" spiral CFLs are also VERY SLOW to light up fully.

Even with a room temp of 20C they take about 3 minutes.

Here in USA, I have yet to see a spiral CFL having any reference other
than yours as "Tornado", and I have yet to have a CFL with bare tubing
fail to be a majority of the way warmed up in 1 minute from 18 C or above.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <6hp59gFn5pr5U1@mid.individual.net>, Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
Phil Allison wrote:

"Eeysore"
Phil Allison wrote:
"Eeysore"

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20Ambiance.htm

Well you won't find them in Morrisons.

** Monstrous ego = blatant LIAR.

Well you won't find them in Morrisons.

** Completely ridiculous RED HERRING !!

The fact you can't find them in a major retailer ?

** Totally irrelevant.

They are readily available from many retailers, world wide.

What a desperate & PATHETIC LIAR !!!

What a desperate & PATHETIC OVER SNIPPER !!!

So, tell us from Australia where in England does one walk in off the
street and find these to be the usual CFLs there. How about available at
all in a retail store for that matter?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <48B69698.7C61A5CB@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

stratus46@yahoo.com
mowhoong wrote:
When you turn the CFL on, It will take about 40 sec brighten
fully , which make it very inconvenient to use.
Can any members help me to explain this phenomenon ?

All the cheapos from Home Depot are at full brilliance
immediately - at least it's so subtle I don't notice it if they're
not.

** The "cheapos" do light up fast.

Cos the tubes are just loaded with mercury and the heater filaments are
overdriven to hell.

They tend to go " booom " real quick too.

I bought 3 cheapos too. Similar results. Maybe they're more generous with
the mercury ? Not had one go bang though.

It's generally not quantity of mercury, but whether or not (and how) the
mercury is amalgamated, as well as presence/absence of an outer bulb.

Presence of an outer bulb generally requires use of amalgam to have
mercury vapor concentration being good at "ultimate warmup".

CFLs that start brighter tend to have a narrower good working
temperature range once they have warmed up.

If you want brighter starting and faster warmups, then avoid the ones
with outer bulbs.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Phil Allison]

"Don Klipstein"

If you want brighter starting and faster warmups, then avoid the ones
with outer bulbs.

** You are SOOOOO full of shit !!

Some of the slowest lighting CFLs are made by Philips and use an exposed
spiral - eg

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm

The "warm up" time is stated to be 2 minutes.

The initial light level is about 10%, it depends on room temp.

Forget using one in a bathroom unless you leave it on all night.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

Morrisons supermarket

** Total RED HERRING !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Bloody TROLL !!



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/Philips%20CFL%20Tornado.htm

The "warm up" time is stated to be 2 minutes.

The initial light level is about 10%, it depends on room temp.

They must keep all the bad ones especially for you.

** Wot a desperate mental retard.




.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Don Klipstein"
Phil Allison wrote:

You also dredged up something from 2004 - but then again,

** Huh ????????

Philips " Tornado " CFLs are on sale right now - asshole.

Also, in ambient 18 C or warmer, my experience is that bare spirals
start a lot brighter than "one candle"!

** And which CFL was my remark about - asshole ??

You need to learn what a RED HERRING is too - wanker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi




....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore"

I have had ZERO problems with any CFL except dropping one
once.

** The YOU are clearly NOT in any position to discuss the many
problems with CFLs.

Ignorance is NOT knowledge.

Red herrings are NOT valid points.

You pathetic bloody fool.




....... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

So where do the commuters park then ?

Wherever they choose to build another multistory carpark.
Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

You obviously know nothing about how heavily 'built up'
Britain and many other European countries are.

Wrong, as always.

They clearly manage to work out how to do carparks currently,
where the old rail yards werent used for carparks, even if you
are too stupid to be able to work that out for yourself.

Besides, big freight yards would be best OUTSIDE city centres.

You aint established that they do need to be that big, and even if
that does make sense, even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed the considerable amount of ag land outside city centers anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

It would be easy to move containers by rail and then by local truck to
say supermarkets etc if the transport fuel costs make that worth doing tho.

It's been tried and found wanting.

Its been tried and continues to be done that way in quite a few countrys.

Large rail yards are too far spread for one thing for it to be practical

Have fun explaining how come they work fine in some places.

Name such a place.

Australia, America, Canada, China, India, Russia, Japan.

and slow freight trains hold up the profitable commuter and long-distance express trains.

They dont have to. The freight can be moved when
there isnt the commuter and express volume.

You mean only ever at night ?

Nope. The main volume overnight, with some of the freight moving during the
day when most of the long distance express train traffic volume is lower etc.
In spades with commuter trains which only use a small fraction of the day.

And do that with parcels to the post office/courier office too.

They have their own parcels van service that transfers to big trucks at distribution centres.

And it may make sense to move that stuff using rail in
future when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

Fuel costs affect diesel locos as much as trucks silly.

We were discussing ELECTRIFIED rail, stupid.

And even with diesel powered trains, trains use
a lot lower amount of diesel per ton moved anyway.

And hydrogen powered locos are very feasible anyway.

Why would they kill a fast and successful service ?

Because rail costs a lot less to move that freight.

Simply not so.

Wrong, as always.

The was a rail general freight company called 'Red Star'. The government
(remember our railways were publicly owned and in part still are) sold Red
Star for Ł1 in order to give it a chance IIRC. It still failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_Parcels

Irrelevant to the basic physics of trains vs heavy trucks.

It is now bought out and a road operated service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LYNX_Express

Irrelevant to the fuel use when moving a container by rail instead of by truck.

There are several companies doing this in fact. I can think of 6 instantly.

Irrelevant to what makes sense when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

Diesel trains use the same stuff.

We were discussing ELECTRIFIED rail, fool.

Almost all freight in the UK is diesel hauled.

Doesnt have to be. And even when it is, trains use less per ton of freight than trucks to.