Interesting ...

[Huge]

On 2015-01-03, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 01:23:28 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgoeh0F6q44U1@mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Qkypw.703472$CW3.143099@fx07.am4...
EE Times article that came to me by email today

http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/the-big-lie-about-led-lighting.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222923405

Mindlessly superficial.

Much like you then ...
Arfa

Nothing profound has ever been said on one line.

Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed.


--
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
"The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex
and picnics." Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Tim Streater]

In article <cgq2ufFhs9bU6@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

On 2015-01-03, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 01:23:28 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgoeh0F6q44U1@mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Qkypw.703472$CW3.143099@fx07.am4...
EE Times article that came to me by email today


http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/the-big-lie-about-led-lighting.html?
cmp_id=7&news_id=222923405

Mindlessly superficial.

Much like you then ...
Arfa

Nothing profound has ever been said on one line.

Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed.

Woddles? Awwwww. Poor old Woddles, he gets it in the neck all the time,
eh? But then it's always well deserved.

--
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores
the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams

 

[Tim Streater]

In article <cgq2lkFhs9bU5@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

On 2015-01-02, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
His basic premise makes sense -- more components = lower reliability -- but
the fact is that one can easily find electronic devices 50 and 60 years old
that have never been serviced that continue to work. Members of this group
probably own them.

This is a category error. Yes, we all have 'n' year old electronic devices,
because we have thrown away the ones that have failed.

Ha! Like it, like it.

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

 

[polygonum]

On 02/01/2015 19:22, William Sommerwerck wrote:

His basic premise makes sense -- more components = lower reliability --
but the fact is that one can easily find electronic devices 50 and 60
years old that have never been serviced that continue to work. Members
of this group probably own them.

A failure rate of 1 in 10,000 (per year?) strikes me as unduly
pessimistic, even for devices used in vacuum tube equipment. Solid-state
-- which almost always operates at lower voltages and temperature --
should be even more reliable.

I own devices that contain far more components than an LED bulb -- yet
they do not drop like flies. Flat-panel TVs are a good example. CU says
the reported breakdown rate is extremely low (3% for a few brands is on
the high end), and advises against purchasing service contracts.

Though the point he raises is valid, and not only deserves, but
requires, study, you can't assume these products fail prematurely simply
because they contain "too many parts". Why they failed is more
important. I wouldn't be surprised if it was due to SMD soldering failure.

The Haswell-E die is composed of 2.6 billion transistors. You have to
achieve phenomenal component reliability for any of them to work as they
leave the factory, let alone years later! Adding up everything in a
typical modern PC including the display leads to even huger numbers of
components. Yet we see many of them struggle on for many years until
they are replaced, all too often, due to inadequate computing power (or
not being able to justify the complete re-install of an updated OS on an
old box) rather than component failure.

--
Rod

 

[polygonum]

On 03/01/2015 11:43, Huge wrote:

Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed.

I don't know, "Profound from Latin profundus : prō-, before; see pro-1 +
fundus, bottom."

--
Rod

 

[Adrian]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:19:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

Please spell carats correctly and cease the apostrophe abuse so that we
don't have to wrap your lines...

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/01/15 13:03, polygonum wrote:

On 02/01/2015 19:22, William Sommerwerck wrote:
His basic premise makes sense -- more components = lower reliability --
but the fact is that one can easily find electronic devices 50 and 60
years old that have never been serviced that continue to work. Members
of this group probably own them.

A failure rate of 1 in 10,000 (per year?) strikes me as unduly
pessimistic, even for devices used in vacuum tube equipment. Solid-state
-- which almost always operates at lower voltages and temperature --
should be even more reliable.

I own devices that contain far more components than an LED bulb -- yet
they do not drop like flies. Flat-panel TVs are a good example. CU says
the reported breakdown rate is extremely low (3% for a few brands is on
the high end), and advises against purchasing service contracts.

Though the point he raises is valid, and not only deserves, but
requires, study, you can't assume these products fail prematurely simply
because they contain "too many parts". Why they failed is more
important. I wouldn't be surprised if it was due to SMD soldering
failure.


The Haswell-E die is composed of 2.6 billion transistors. You have to
achieve phenomenal component reliability for any of them to work as they
leave the factory, let alone years later! Adding up everything in a
typical modern PC including the display leads to even huger numbers of
components. Yet we see many of them struggle on for many years until
they are replaced, all too often, due to inadequate computing power (or
not being able to justify the complete re-install of an updated OS on an
old box) rather than component failure.

The deeper analysis asks the question 'what fails, and why?'

In general a chip once made, wont degrade catastrophically. Its
thermally stable, and any manufacturing faults show up on test or early on.

Yes, RAM and other chops do age, but there is a wide tolerance before
they go so far out of spec they are useless.

By far the greatest killer is heat: heat accelerates ageing., death
occurs in microseconds at 180C, decades at 30C



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

 

[Huge]

On 2015-01-03, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:

On 03/01/2015 11:43, Huge wrote:
Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed.


I don't know, "Profound from Latin profundus : prō-, before; see pro-1 +
fundus, bottom."

LOL

--
Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
"The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex
and picnics." Christopher Hitchens.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Huge" wrote in message news:cgq2lkFhs9bU5@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-01-02, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

His basic premise makes sense -- more components = lower reliability
-- but the fact is that one can easily find electronic devices 50 and 60
years old that have never been serviced that continue to work. Members
of this group probably own them.

This is a category error. Yes, we all have 'n' year-old electronic devices,
because we have thrown away the ones that have failed.

That's logically correct. But I have 40 to 50 year old Sony and KLH products
that work fine. Whereas Sony stuff from the last 15 years is gradually falling
apart.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"polygonum" wrote in message news:cgq7lqFkeqiU1@mid.individual.net...

The Haswell-E die is composed of 2.6 billion transistors. You have
to achieve phenomenal component reliability for any of them to
work as they leave the factory, let alone years later!

One might argue that all the transistors are created simultaneously in a
single processing sequence, and that the chip is, technically, a single
component.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:goheaa5ogri9rn4tms95m5edkuhq25oidd@4ax.com...

> Nothing profound has ever been said on one line.

Including that statement?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:htfeaa9rp9rc028ei8e7phd31i20rq4b2o@4ax.com...

The reason for the designed in failures is the need for manufactories
to continue selling replacements. If they actually made a device that
lasts forever, they will sell a few years worth, and then go out of
business because there will be no replacement sales. Reliability is
bad for (consumer) business.

What about lighting for new buildings?

From my perspective, the cost savings outweigh the "premature" failures.

That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"?
My best guess(tm) here is that he's still having problems adjusting
to LED lighting and needs a new reason to not use LED lighting.

Like most people, Arfa doesn't like high-K lighting. I switched to 5000K CFLs,
and though it took a couple of weeks to adjust, I much prefer light that
more-closely resembles daylight, and is subjectively brighter.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Rod Speed" wrote in message news:cgp383FbseeU1@mid.individual.net...

> Much more likely he doesn't actually have a fucking clue about the basics.

Are you any relation to Joshua Speed?

Arfa is an intelligent and knowledgeable person. You do not come off as very
bright (joke intended) making such a broad attack.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/01/15 15:03, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"polygonum" wrote in message news:cgq7lqFkeqiU1@mid.individual.net...

The Haswell-E die is composed of 2.6 billion transistors. You have
to achieve phenomenal component reliability for any of them to
work as they leave the factory, let alone years later!

One might argue that all the transistors are created simultaneously in a
single processing sequence, and that the chip is, technically, a single
component.
In general its also a tested component.

so it works to spec or it doesn't.

*Failure* of a system that worked to start with implies change over
time: The relevant point is what changes happen to circuits over time
and what law if any, they follow.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

 

[polygonum]

On 03/01/2015 15:03, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"polygonum" wrote in message news:cgq7lqFkeqiU1@mid.individual.net...

The Haswell-E die is composed of 2.6 billion transistors. You have
to achieve phenomenal component reliability for any of them to
work as they leave the factory, let alone years later!

One might argue that all the transistors are created simultaneously in a
single processing sequence, and that the chip is, technically, a single
component.

One might argue that is the case for the 100-component circuit referred
to in the EE Times article. I simply do not know what goes on in the
making of "an LED plus its associated circuitry". Is it made as one,two
or 101 components?

--
Rod

 

[polygonum]

On 03/01/2015 15:10, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Like most people, Arfa doesn't like high-K lighting. I switched to 5000K
CFLs, and though it took a couple of weeks to adjust, I much prefer
light that more-closely resembles daylight, and is subjectively brighter.

I too prefer higher K lamps - though probably 4200 to 4500 rather than
5000. I get the feeling that the 2700 ones started out as OK LEDs but
someone adjusted it until it was a yellow as a candle.

Also want the best possible CRI.

--
Rod

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"polygonum" wrote in message news:cgqhchFmufhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 03/01/2015 15:03, William Sommerwerck wrote:

One might argue that all the transistors are created simultaneously in a
single processing sequence, and that the chip is, technically, a single
component.

One might argue that is the case for the 100-component circuit referred to
in the EE Times article.

One //might not// argue that. The LED lamp is made of discrete components that
are manufactured separately, and individually soldered in place.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 07:05:05 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:goheaa5ogri9rn4tms95m5edkuhq25oidd@4ax.com...

Nothing profound has ever been said on one line.

Including that statement?

Of course. Everything I write has a hidden meaning, hidden agenda,
hidden target, or hidden oxymoron.

The problem here is that while I respect the rights of every person to
have an opinion in accordance with freedom of speech, I don't really
care what that opinion might be. I'm interested in the reasoning
behind that opinion, the logic used to arrive at the opinion, and
possibly some examples of why that opinion is correct and others
wrong. I'll then weight all the sides of the discussion, relative to
my needs, and make my own decision. Circumventing this logic process
by merely offering an opinion is a waste of time and bytes.

Also, the proliferation of one-line comments on the web and Usenet
make me suspect that the literacy of those involved is deficient. I
can speculate endlessly as to the reasons for this deterioration in
literacy. One of the more interesting causes is coupled with another
problem. Posters with questions often supply as little information as
possible and require interrogation in order to extract the facts.
One-liners and lack of info are symptoms of the same problem, fear of
screwing up. The more one writes, the easier it is for someone else
to find an error, omission, or logic fault. Rather than be caught
making a mistake, it is much easier to not present a targets.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and
remove all doubt"? (Abraham Lincoln).

It's also possible that the perpetrators of one-liners are stuck in a
write only mode, where they care little about those that might read
the comments. That would class them only slightly better than a
spammer that doesn't read the newsgroup before or after posting their
junk. If this is the problem, I suggest that people posting anything
first consider a simple litmus test. If you don't like reading what
you're about to post, then don't post it.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Phil Allison]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

However, the rest are tightwads or just plain cheap. They look at the
store shelf and see $1 CCFL lamps next to $10 LED lights.

** Why "CCFL" lamps.

That totally depends on how you rate lifetime. I get about 2 years on
most of my commodity CCFL lights.

** Why "CCFL" lamps.

However, these are not the best CCFL lights. Why would this company
advertise that their CCFL lamps have 2.5 to 6.6 times the lifetime of
ordinary CCFL lamps?

** Because they ARE CCFL type lamps.

CCFL = " cold cathode fluorescent."

Same technology used for backlighting LDC screens, but made in bulb style.

Google tells me they exist, but I have never seen one.

Look like spiral CFLs but the glass tube is much finer and there are a lot more turns.


..... Phil

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 03/01/15 10:57, Tim Lamb wrote:

In message <m87t7j$5ai$2@reader1.panix.com>, Cydrome Leader
presence@MUNGEpanix.com> writes
In sci.electronics.repair Capitol <spam@wher.eva.co.uk> wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Jerry Peters<jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Cydrome Leader<presence@mungepanix.com> wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair mike<ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
On 1/2/2015 6:56 AM, Arfa Daily wrote:
EE Times article that came to me by email today


http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/the-big-lie-about-led-lighti
ng.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222923405


Arfa
I've never had a CFL failure that I could trace to the CFL.
It's always the electronics driving it. A power glitch can take
out a LED just as easily as a CFL.

I've had a couple CFLs burn out at the bulb from old age. Most had
electronic failures, or jsut broke.

The longest lasting CFL may be one in my bathroom with 10 years of
on-off use. I'd have to remove it to checked the purchase date I write on
them though.

I've had a few CFL's fail due to electronics failure, but the newer
bulbs last longer. Unfortunately as they age they get dimmer. Looking
at an aged bulb I noticed that the phosphor layer has turned a brownish
color.

I'd have to agree that the newer ones seem a bit better. They've figured
out how make them as simple as possible now is my guess.

I did have one failure that when I took it apart, 1 of the wires to to
the flourescent was disconnected& the others were questionable.
Soldered them all& re-assembled the bulb and it's still in use in the
basement bathroom.

they're still useless for outdoor cold use. The ones outside by the stairs
are like nightlights when the temps drop to freezing. It's amazing they
even start.

I'm not a fan of the warm up period they take, even indoors.

Interesting, my outside CFLs are over 35yrs old and start down to -8C
without fail. My newer CFLs, die like flies in comparison, particularly
in glass globe fittings. I reckon some CFLs have as short a life as
filament bulbs, even when running cool..

35 years old? That thing must have been belt driven.

Philips brought out a bayonet fitting CFL late '70's. Very heavy for
pendant drops!

Still using a Phillips CFL bought around 1985, rated at 18w, and about a
dozen cm in diameter. Works well, with no obvious loss of light once
warmed up, although it was used only for 3 or 4 years when first bought,
and not used again until a couple of years ago. As you say, it's pretty
heavy!

--

Jeff