Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or
business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.


On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.

**The dribblers don't count. People who lack a decent education are not
representative of thinking adults. Nor are religious loonies like Alan
Jones, Christopher Monckton and George Pell.

This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see.

**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that proves that
the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British Academy of Science, the
US National Academy of Sciences, The German Academy of Science, The
Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of Sciences and a host of other
organisations.

So, over to you: Supply your peer-reviewed science which proves that all
these guys (and many, many other respected scientific organisations) have it
so terribly wrong.


Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,

from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there?

**So? CSIRO has been successful at commercialising many of it's developments
over the years. It makes perfect sense to have people with commercial skills
on the board. The scientists report the science. The board does not.

The banksters cooked up

this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people.

**Did they? Prove it.

In other words you and your business pays the tax,

and the big connected bastards get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.

**Sure. It's how it has always worked. Nothing to do with global warming
though. Excessive CO2 emissions are driving the temperature of this planet
faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Nothing to do with
taxation, politics or the opinions of religious nutters.

Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public.

**Is that so? Care to explain why the scientists at the CSIRO reported to
the Howard (AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? Care to
explain why the scientists at NASA and the US EPA were reporting to the Bush
(AGW denying) government that AGW was a real problem? According to your
twisted logic, the scientists at all three organisations should have
reported what their political masters wanted. To their credit, the
scientists did what all reputable scientists do - they reported the facts.

Thats just how real life works

in this thoroughly corrupted world.

**OK. Prove it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 26, 8:28 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions  

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present a
cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?storeId...

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices in
the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to reject
the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that rising CO2
levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves experiencing. You
appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for the hysterical ravings
of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the
scientists who study and report on global warming, for the most part, do not
have links to the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or business bias.
Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing very clear warnings to
President Bush. Bush was a rabid global warming denier. We had the same
thing here in Australia. During the Howard government years, Australia's
premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the
government that anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious
problems for Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government
was aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was the
order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard government
are still denying the science, even today. Most are religious loonies, so no
one takes much ntice anymore.

On the contrary - few believe in it anymore at least in Australia.
This fraud has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and it is great
to see. Did you know that the head of the CSIRO is a former bankster,
from the same company that wants to be australia's carbon banker and
there is another sitting on the board there? The banksters cooked up
this scam and funded and promoted it behind the scenes over many years
as the next big cash cow for themselves, and to set up more control
over the people. In other words you and your business pays the tax,
and the big connected bastards get exemptions and you are driven under
and they end up with a monopoly and can charge what they want. This is
how the world works.

Scientists - like most other people in this world get jobs, pay and
research funding based on following the corporate line, and/or party
line, at least to the general public. Thats just how real life works
in this thoroughly corrupted world.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:10:12 +1000, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann = Nut case "

Humor me for a moment.

** Be better to put idiots like you in straight jackets.

Hmmm... I was looking for a suitable costume for Halloween. That's
an American tradition, where we dress up in scary costumes and
terrorize people like you.

Incidentally, I really enjoy being accused of marginal sanity. It
demonstrates that you're paying attention.

Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get?

** Irrelevant, totally.

Your brain self correct for color variations. Take a photo under
fluorescent tube lamps and you'll get a greenish tint (unless you have
a camera that automagically does color corrections). Your eyes can be
fooled. Your camera cannot, as it shows the true color.

Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

** Nope.

Hint: It's yellow. It should be white or at least more like white
than a mix of red and green. I suspect that might be what is giving
Arfa problems. Photographing various CFL lamps, and selecting one
that is closest to white might be a fix.

I just found the package. It's a FEIT BPCE13T cheapo bulb. About
$1US as subsidized by PG&E (the local power utility).
<http://energy-star-lighting.findthebest.com/detail/573/Conserv-Energy>
2700K which makes it a "warm white".

.... Phil

--
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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Fraud? Do tell. Please provide your peer-reviewed science that
proves that the CSIRO, the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, the British
Academy of Science, the US National Academy of Sciences, The German
Academy of Science, The Australian Bureu of Meteorology, The UK MET,
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Netherlands Academey of
Sciences and a host of other organisations.

**Should read:

"....Sciences and a host of other organisations are wrong."


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:36:51 +1000, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT "


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.


** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

You're doing exactly the same thing.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jeßus = TROLL "

You're doing exactly the same thing.

** Nonsense.

Piss off - you fucking retard.

 

[Jeßus]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:10:59 +1000, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"Jeßus = TROLL "

You're doing exactly the same thing.


** Nonsense.

Piss off - you fucking retard.

Me, fucking retards? Bimbos perhaps... I'll cop to that much at least.
Have a great day Phil!

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"


** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.


** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of expressing
himself, he is correct.


strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
strait¡jack¡et
   [streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
thinking.

verb (used with object) Also, strait-jack¡et.

3. to put in or as in a straitjacket: Her ambition was straitjacketed
by her family.

Also, straightjacket.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

 

[Wild_Bill]

Many people (balanced and otherwise) often state that recycled this-n-that
are great for the planet, yet those people have no idea where the power
comes from for the recycling facilities.. often coal generation.

Cars are still a huge air pollution contributor, but much worse are the
freighters operating on bunker oil, which pollute much more significantly
than all the worlds' autos.
Bunker oil is likely the filthiest fuel ever used, and is what freighter
ships use to transport most of the crap goods being produced these days.

So, as manufacturing of common products leaves one continent, more imported
goods are being transported from across the vast oceans.

When the low quality goods quickly fail, they're transported again by more
internal combustion engines to landfills and placed in the ground beside
fresh water resources.
Just because trash trucks operate in your neighborhood every week doesn't
mean the landfill is local.
Here in Pennsylvania, the landfills have been accepting waste from more than
12 other states, and it's easy to see that PA doesn't have 12 bordering
states.. so trash is trucked or transported across/thru entire states to be
dumped here.

As I've said for a number of years, job opportunities with real job security
are in the waste industry.
The cheap crap products that keep pouring into my, and your, country every
day have to be disposed of.

The biggest hoax of the last 50+ years is that products are cheaper because
they're made elsewhere (poor countries), instead of domestically.
The actual truth is that it's more profitable to have goods made elsewhere,
which involves much more than cheap labor.. it involves behind-closed-doors
deal making and power, influence and favoritism (our favorite communist
nation which holds huge domestic business debts).

China and other countries accept some of our waste products, then recycle
them with coal-generated power, then ship those products globally with
bunker oil.. so the recycled products have real-world costs that don't end
up in the cost effectiveness evaluations.. but keep perpetuating the
recycled-is-good mentality.

The total net gain is a loss.

LED and CFL lighting aren't the solutions, they only distract attention.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:k38t7719frckp9nb9lctenpi15uu7f7qnu@4ax.com...

There are about 600 coal plants in the US. The numbers are a bit
misleading as coal fired power plants come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not the number, but the generation capacity that's important. In
the US, we built 10 new plants in 2010 for a total new capacity of
1.6GW (gigawatts). However, if you include decomissioned plants, the
net loss in capacity in 2010 was about -4.6GW lost. Most of the loss
was balanced by a transition to federally subsidized wind power. In
2010, there was also the cancellation of 10 additional plants mostly
due to legislative or EPA restriction. For example, California has a
ban on new coal plants (SB1368). Europe is doing much the same.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_phase_out
If the EPA gets its way, it's likely that most of the older US coal
plants will need to close to meet emission requirements.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants

The loss of -4.6GW of coal generation capacity is not going to make
much of a dent in the mercury emissions. At this time, the US gets
about 45% of about 4 trillion kw-hr of electricity from coal. A few
gigawatts of capacity here and there isn't going to change much.
http://www.eia.gov/coal/
Note that capacity loss is usually balanced by burning more coal to
produce more electricity at other plants. Therefore, closing a plant
does NOT constitute an overall decrease in emissions. Only a decrease
in generated mw-hr can decrease emissions.

If you accept my coal generation logic at face value, every product
that uses electricity also dumps mercury into the environment. For
example, my electric water heater would be considered a major
contributor to coal based environmental pollution and far more
significant than a CFL lamp. While this doesn't do anything to help
one decide between CFL and incandescent, it does highlight some
priorities on the process.

Yep. Something like 90% of the really obnoxious atmospheric pollution
comes from burning coal. There are technologies that drastically
reduce coal fired plant emissions. They're expensive, messy, use huge
amounts of water, and are being largely ignored by the larger plants.
Not so with the smaller plants, a few of which use one or more
technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
As far as I can tell, neither India or China are doing clean coal
plants.


I don't have an answer to the "why". Most likely, both countries
economies will collapse without the generated power, which makes it
one of many "necessary evils".


--
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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of expressing
himself, he is correct.

strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
straitˇjackˇet
[streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
thinking.


and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
example.

**If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want to
engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself to others
for the moron that you are.

I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions. Says a
great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned, rational discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[William Sommerwerck]

The fact that a dictionary accepts a gross misspelling of a word does not
make it right.

The English language -- unlike the French -- does not have an "authority"
controlling its content or usage, so it can be corrupted. "Straightjacket"
is wrong.

 

[kreed]

On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:

On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

  "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"

  ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

  Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No,  you fucking  FUCKWIT.

     The spelling  IS  correct  !!!!!!

     Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of expressing
himself, he is correct.

strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
strait¡jack¡et
   [streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
    as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
    Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
    thinking.

and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
example.

verb (used with object) Also, strait-jack¡et.

3. to put in or as in a straitjacket: Her ambition was straitjacketed
    by her family.

Also, straightjacket.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1de08004-6da4-4b15-a01e-b86d1999d67c@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 26, 4:35 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

The fact that a dictionary accepts a gross misspelling of a word does not
make it right.

The English language -- unlike the French -- does not have an "authority"
controlling its content or usage, so it can be corrupted. "Straightjacket"
is wrong.

Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.

Possibly "Straight" Jacket is probably an American version of the
term, the Americans are good at spelling words differently, dropping
and reversing letters, compared to other english speaking peoples.


No, it's that Americans are stupid. They spell it the way it sounds, without
understanding its derivation.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message
news:i35v77hp4kp38lfvnrq05h6j8sps5ir5ak@4ax.com...

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html

Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/en/osram-s-near-omnidirectional-led-lamp-to-replace-75w-incandescent-lamp.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222907475

Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly in
regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I had
long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made spherical, so
that the light would be omni.

Arfa

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.

The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981 edition, gives both spellings as equal
alternatives.

So do others, both US and UK ones - PLUS the MS Spell Checker !!!


The really wonderful thing about the English language is that it Lives,
Breathes and CHANGES.

So we can all have * FUN * with it.

And bets of all, it pisses fuckwit pedants off to hell !!!!!!!!!!!




...... Phil

 

[kreed]

On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of expressing
himself, he is correct.

strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
strait jack et
   [streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
thinking.

and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
example.

**If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want to
engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself to others
for the moron that you are.

No, I am not being puerile, Im giving an example that most on this
group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
"faith". An analogy if you like.

I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions. Says a
great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned, rational discussion..

To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan race"
or "eugenics" The subject is so obviously ridiculous, discredited to
start with that any thinking person has already dismissed it for what
it is.

It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind

Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO, or
other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.

The answer from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
without question is that "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
not believing." Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to the
mental hospital (re-education camp) you go". Not that many truly
believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to avoid
the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those around them,
who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be seen supporting or
associating with someone who speaks it publicly.


Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material, Im
not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it would
be a waste of time anyway.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Sep 26, 4:35 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

The fact that a dictionary accepts a gross misspelling of a word does not
make it right.

The English language -- unlike the French -- does not have an "authority"
controlling its content or usage, so it can be corrupted. "Straightjacket"
is wrong.

Well, I always thought it was "strait" jacket.

Possibly "Straight" Jacket is probably an American version of the
term, the Americans are good at spelling words differently, dropping
and reversing letters, compared to other english speaking peoples.

 

[F Murtz]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message
news:i35v77hp4kp38lfvnrq05h6j8sps5ir5ak@4ax.com...
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:20:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:54:07 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Anyway, enough time spent on this now. Been enjoyable.
Arfa

Humor me for a moment. Take a digital camera photo of your favorite
CFL lamp. Turn off all the other sources of light. What color do you
get? Here's mine:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/FEIT-23w.jpg
See a problem perhaps?

Extra credit. Find various sheets of blank paper with an assortment
of brightness from about 85 to 105. Photograph those using either a
CFL lamp and an incandescent lamp source. What colors do you get?
(Note that the 105 brightness contains phosphors resulting in the
reflected light actually being brighter than the incident light).

You might want to buy a cheap LED UV flashlight and a diffraction
grating, for more fun with lighting.
http://www.scientificsonline.com/holographic-diffraction-grating-film-10036.html


Or, from the same source (as well as Amazon, etc.) this thing
http://www.scientificsonline.com/precision-economy-spectrometer.html
which includes a nm scale. Some examples of what it shows at
http://home.comcast.net/~mcculloch-brown/astro/spectrostar.html

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/en/osram-s-near-omnidirectional-led-lamp-to-replace-75w-incandescent-lamp.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222907475


Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly
in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp.
I had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made
spherical, so that the light would be omni.

Arfa

Sounds good,It would cost me about aud $2000 for lamps for this house

 

[Wild_Bill]

Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is important, for
most of the commonly available types.
It was easily seen that filament lighting was omnidirectional, and very
evenly dispersed by internal coatings applied to the envelopes.

The common T-1-3/4 LED is essentially good for a panel indicator, not a
space illuminating/lighting device.
Even the more powerful 1W and larger devices wouldn't throw any light if not
for the lenses and a good reflector, The reflector area needs to be about
30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any distance
(counterproductive for a compact design).. and then the results are a bright
spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo.
Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks.

The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they get
writers/reporters today? They can't provide a link to go directly to the
manufacturers' products that they report on, but instead only provide a link
so you can go look it up yourself.

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/News/General_Interest_Press/2011/110825_Parathom_Pro_Classic_A75_Advanced.html

This fuzzy image looks like an artist created it.. it might be expected that
the actual construction materials are clear.. I just hope it's not glass,
because every simpleton already knows that glass production is destroying
the planet.
It sorta looks like a hemisphere of LEDs and a reflector/diffuser over it.
There doesn't appear to be any obtrusive heat sinking like the flying saucer
shapes I've seen in the stores lately.
There you have it.. these lights will pay for themselves. Step right up,
folks.
This here is a new Dimension.

The listed efficiency of a 75W incandescent is shown as Zero.. but it's
actually 100% or more when it's turned off, and it might only cost $1
(although I regularly see them for lower prices).

So, maybe this is the root issue, that people today are too GD lazy to turn
off lights when they're not being used (doesn't matter that the govt has
strongly recommended it, for years now).

If the efficiency of a 75W IC lamp is zero, then watt about a 100W.. minus
25?
It's already been established that the heating value (of the mostly infrared
light) from IC lamps will reduce home heating system loads.

The Chinese (government-backed) factories could likely tool up within a
couple of weeks to closely copy this lamp, or a looky-like the same, and
flood the market.

Since few people are aware of the disclaimer that comes with nearly every
poduct produced today (and for recent decades).. "Specifications subject to
change".

Might wanna get the extended warranty on these new lights.. the "limited"
package warranty might look like swiss cheese.

One of my curiosities will be how tolerant the new LED lamps will be of line
voltage spikes/surges, regardless of what the predicted lifetimes are.

--
Cheers,
WB
..............


"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EiZfq.9272$Nq1.4785@newsfe25.ams2...

Today, this dropped into my email

http://www.ledlighting-eetimes.com/en/osram-s-near-omnidirectional-led-lamp-to-replace-75w-incandescent-lamp.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222907475

Looks as though it might address some of the points I made, particularly
in regard to the (typically) non-omnidirectional light from a LED lamp. I
had long wondered why the cooling core for the LEDs was not made
spherical, so that the light would be omni.

Arfa

 

[Trevor Wilson]

kreed wrote:

On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"

** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.

Correct spelling.

I did correct the spelling.

** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.

The spelling IS correct !!!!!!

Pedantry is a mental illness.

Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of
expressing himself, he is correct.

strait jacket
[streyt-jak-it]
strait jack et
[streyt-jak-it]
noun
1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the arms,
as of a violently disoriented person.
2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
thinking.

and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
example.

**If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want
to engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself
to others for the moron that you are.


No, I am not being puerile,

**Plainly, you are. Read your own words again.

Im giving an example that most on this

group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
"faith". An analogy if you like.

**Bollocks. I have merely cited the overwhelming amount of good, solid
SCIENCE that supports the notion of AGW. You, OTOH, despite requests, have
supplied ZERO evidence to counter that science. Let's talk about who has
their beliefs rooted in faith and who has his rooted in science. You are are
very shakey ground.

I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions.
Says a great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned,
rational discussion.


To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan race"
or "eugenics" The subject is so obviously ridiculous, discredited to
start with that any thinking person has already dismissed it for what
it is.

**Utter and complete bollocks. If you wish to discredt it, then supply your
peer-reviewed science. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Unless, of
course, you happen to lack ammunition.

It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind

**Bollocks. Supply your peer-reviewed science.

Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO,

**I said NOTHING about ASIO. I cited several scientific organisations. If
you have some evidence that these organisations have been "bought off", then
you need to supply some evidence pertaining to:

* Who bought them off?
* Why they were bought off?
* Which scientists are driving around in Buggatti Veyrons, because they've
been bought off?
* Some evidence to prove that ALL the organisations I listed were "bought
off".

YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.

or

other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.

**YOU made an outrageous claim. YOU need to substantiate that claim.

The answer from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
without question is that "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
not believing."

**If a person does not accept the fact of AGW, then there are several
possibilities:

* That person is as dumb as a rock.
* That person is lying.
* That person has not taken the time to read the data.
* That person is employed by the fossil fuel industry, or gains some income
from the use of fossil fuel.
* That person has allowed religious beliefs to over-ride logic and reason.

Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to the
mental hospital (re-education camp) you go".

**There is no "USSR". The USSR was not a free state.

Not that many truly

believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to avoid
the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those around them,
who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be seen supporting or
associating with someone who speaks it publicly.

**Fortunately, our society is not like the defunct USSR. Our society is free
and ideas can be freely stated and, if found to be false, dismissed.

Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material,

**I read it daily. I've also read the IPCC AR4. Have you?


Im

not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it would
be a waste of time anyway.

**A waste of time is discussing logic and reason with you. I note your
continued avoidance of my questions and points raised.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au