Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - Page 10

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:52:27 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Here's the original report to the US Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee:
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id83%947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Some general comments on the above:
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id21%58072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

1000 scientists as of Dec 2010:
<http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

Revised 2010 version of the report:
<http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=b6c4660adeeec66b4b7e4b116e831bbb&l_sid27%695&l_eid=&l_mid23%36201

Incidentally, only about 20% of the IPCC scientists have anything to
do with climate in their daytime academic jobs.  Should the IPCC
really be considered authoritative?
<http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/16/christyschlesinger-debate-part-ii/

I'm not sure how to do an independent verification, since the AGW
debate has successfully polarized just about everyone involved in
climate research.  I could probably conjur someone neutral from the
non-climatology scientists, but those would not be authoritative.
Surely you're not looking for research papers published by
non-climatologists?

Methinks you might find the text and links in the 2010 report to be
rather umm... interesting.  321 pages is a bit much, but I expect to
be done reading sometime tonite.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).


**  Rabid greenies, space aliens  -  what's the difference ?



....  Phil



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done. :)

 When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,
they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Have yourself committed. You've completely lost touch with reality.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**There you go again: Ignoring science, logic and reason. Crop circles were
created by humans. There is no reputable evidence that this planet has been
visited by aliens. Ever. Significantly, so-called 'alien abductions' suddely
began at around the time science fiction movies about aliens made their way
to cinemas. Like your ideas, such things are purely fictional.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**OK, I'll bite: What damage and what potential dmage do you refer to? Be
specific. Compare that damage to:

* The war in the Gulf.
* The Vietnam War.
* WWII
* WWI
* Chernobyl
* The recent nuclear reactor problems in Japan
* Bhopal
* The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
* The extinction of thousands of species during the last 100 years

Which is worse and why?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Is that so? How so? Be specific in your answer.

I fully expect that you will adopt your usual attitude and you will fail to
respond to any of my questions.

I accept, in advance, that you acknowledge that you are full of shit.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

"Jeff Liebermann"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence  -  a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of  "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
of scientific dishonesty.



....  Phil















Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it


So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**LOL! Nor should it. Accusing several dozen of the best scientific
organisations on the planet of fraud, demands some pretty solid evidence.
Thus far, you've presented exactly nothing.

Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Here are some graphs that are directly related to the issues faced by
Australia (and the rest of the planet):

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season01%12&ave_yr11 %

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season01%12&ave_yr11 %

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmin&area=aus&season01%12&ave_yr11 %

The tools are available for you to mess around with the graphs all you wish.
The results will be pretty much the same. The trend to higher temperatures
accross Australia are clear and unequivocal. These are not guesses, nor
projections. They're real, hard data.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au





Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you
know that the speaker
or the forum is bought and has no credibility.

There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
"tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
draconian internet censorship) etc.

Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
their lies are exposed
to the world, and no one believes them anymore.  Be very careful of
them.
  Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
the
"scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
by supporting this scam.

It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
truth.


The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
emperors new clothes on -  wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
be done for "making and possession of child abuse material"  but of
course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Also take a look at the Green Movement.

Note that like most evils, it always starts out with reasonable
things, like don't throw rubbish everywhere, dont dump large
quantities of toxic waste in streams, or land etc (especially where it
gets back into your food or water supply).  Fair enough, people say.
Then over time things change

The entire core and philosophy of the modern Green movement is to sell
to people to a totally non-negotiable blinding hate and loathing of
yourself and humans generally, that "people are filth, a disease, have
to be gotten rid of  (Except for greenies and those in power of course
who are totally exempt from this, they are allowed to drive large
cars, fly everywhere, have large families, huge homes, and electricity
usage etc - where you and I are absolute filth who shouldn't be
allowed electricity, children, meat, or any resources).

Out of interest, I was pointed by another poster to a guy called
"Alfred Adask" who discovered an interesting phrase in the drug
enforcement laws - where the term "Man and other animals" is used.  He
used this successfuly as a defense to get a charge of producing
nutritional supplements dropped. I would advise checking this out.
Note the term "animals" - very convenient to remove someone's rights
and possibly a reason why the government is so keen on pushing
"evolution"  (Note the implication - If you are evolved from animals -
you are an animal yourself, have no rights, like cattle and are not a
human being ?)

Note too that for greenies, who tend over time to get everything they
want legislated for - Nothing at all is ever enough. They get handed
everything, then they come up with a set of crazier and crazier
demands.  There is no room whatsover for negotiation, or avoiding bad
consequences - their word is the way it is and that is the end of it.


Electricity ?   Can't have coal, becuase of "carbon pollution", but
hydro and wind are ok  - No carbon ?

Hydro - Oh no, damming rivers destroys wildlife, and some rare
fish.
Wind ?   No way, it kills some rare bird, and the noises from the
blades distresses animals.
Nuclear - Oh no, Chernobyl !

Solar - They haven't attacked that yet - but the fact is that it isnt
a solution in that it doesn't work at night, in climates where there
isnt much sun, and with high rise apartment buildings and office
blocks would not have enough roof space to collect sufficient power.
It also doesnt work well when there is bad weather. It would be
useless to power heavy industry or something like an aluminium plant.


As you can see - the goal is not to make "clean" (though unaffordable)
power, but to progressively remove these resources from the average
person, and turn us back to a feudal state where we are mere slaves
and animals, and these elites are our rulers living in unbelievable
luxury.  People like that are kept on the edge of starvation, they
have no rights, they do not question, they do not protest, they do
little to resist, and are flat out surviving.  This sort of society is
the wet dream of anyone in power, who wants to stay in power.  Without
affordable energy, the ability to travel you are nothing and have no
economic future, no way out of ignorance or any form of life.  Take a
look at countries where this already happens.


Look also at Agenda 21 which is a scary policy of environmental evil.


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their minds
that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it fits with
their philosophy, the deniers don't want it to be true as they may have
to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I disagree. _I_ certainly would prefer that all the climatologists have it
very wrong. Sadly, as their position is one that is rooted in science, it is
highly likely that they are correct.

 the deniers don't want it to be true as
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**That's the way I view it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
[snipped an awful lot]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think there is a place for halogen spot lights. In my kitchen area,
with a pine-lined cathedral ceiling, I have 4 halogens. They are well
placed above the critical spots where I need good lighting.

The 35W lamps from Ikea are just as bright as the old 50W. (Even the 20W
ones could be an option now).

I run them on electronic ballasts and on a trailing edge dimmer, for a
soft background light when the kitchen's closed:)
The dimmer has a soft start switch, very nice!
I have had no 35W lamps failing after 3 years which equates to an
estimated 2000 hrs on full power, and the dimming hasn't done any harm
to them.

I have, for now, substituted 2 of the halogens with LED lights from Deal
Extreme (MR16 4-LED 360-Lumen 3500K Warm White Light Bulb (12V)
Item Number 39027 49.5mm, $8.30) which consume only 6W (6W instead of 35
is a strong argument). They are bright enough but the yellowish colour
really needs to get used to. I don't know if I will keep them   or get
some more white ones instead. Maybe someone has tried some more and
different ones? Let us know what you think. There is just too many too
chose from.

Tony

[snipped even more]

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Hi Tony,

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have replaced 6 x 50w Halgens in our kitchen with 6 x these ones 3.8w each

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-8w-60-led-6500k-360-lumen-light-bulb-white-12v-30825

and I have to say I am happy on several fronts.

firstly it consumes only 23w compared to 300w of the originals.
secondly they run cool not burning hot
thirdly the light is WHITE not yellow and floods the kitchen rather than
being directional like the halogens were.

Our ceilings are 9ft and the halogens created a bright area that was
very narrow and left deep shadows to the sides of the area...

These LEDs `flood' the whole area and in effect create a daylight
environment much more pleasing to me.

I will add that whilst they ran on AC 12V they had a slight flicker I
found disturbing so I now run them off 12Vdc and they are great.

mick

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mr16-3-8w-60-led-6500k-360-lumen-light-bulb-white-12v-30825
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thanks Mick.
They are a bit more expensive, but worth a try.
(Even though with Deal Extreme I never know for sure if I get what's in
the description.)
Tony

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True.  Dumping 4 tons of mercury into landfills every year is not a
good thing.  However, to put that in perspective, the coal that we use
to generate most of our electricity has an estimated 75 tons of
mercury mixed in, each year, two thirds of which is belched into the
atmosphere.  If you include the mercury emissions from generating the
power needed to run an incandescent lamp, the CFL lamp dumps 1/4th the
mercury into the environment as the incandescent.
<http://www.cflknowhow.org/cfl-mercury-information.html

Permit me to point out that US domestic and commerical electricity
consumption has been increasing quite constantly at the rate of about
1.5%/year.  If there were any energy savings from the existing CFL
lamps in service, it would have appeared as a drop in the consumption
trend.  It's a bit tricky to use, but you can dig the history and
trends out of:
<http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#releaseAE%O2011

Tungsten, as used in incandescent lamps, may not be all that
environmentally correct:
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8703sci2.html
There's not much known about the effects of tungsten in the
environment, but it is becoming yet another thing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry much about phosphorus as we're scheduled to run out
in 50-100 years.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus

--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it

But as I said, coal fired plants have been declining over the years in
Europe - for instance, we operate just 14 here in the UK now. France has
none, I believe. Apparently, the vast majority of increase in CO2 emissions,
and use of coal to fire power plants, is coming from India and China. These
are both technologically competent nations, who are ignoring any
responsibility they might have to reduce emissions. So why does that mean
that I have to suffer a 'pissing into the wind' replacement for technology
that I am happy with, so they can carry on regardless ?

http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600 /

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:02:28 +0100, "Arfa Daily"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
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
.............


We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
You really are a blue ribbon simpleton, Trev.

When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of
communication and/or creativity weren't banned.

I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going
to include:

-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite
number of forms.
Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using
computers to create and generate more forms.
Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still
paper, although many are digitized.

-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many
people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper.
Didn't see that happen either.

-records will be more secure.
Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which
aren't archived elsewhere.

Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make
everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the
planet.
Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a
worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech
money from others for a good cause.

-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save
time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves).
Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there
are still always lines and peope waiting.
Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient,
they're actually more complicated.

You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from
silicon.

Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained
within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps.
Maybe you should start yapping about argon.

You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution
created is dealt with appropriately".
This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken
place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the
cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are
generally only symbolic.

You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so
lighting devices you've commented on.
Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting
industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices
sold every year.

The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever
been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even
function when new.
The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed.
Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10
years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many
don't last 2 years.

What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in
today's manufacturing practices.
The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention.
All that trash needs to go somewhere.
How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?

So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year
life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them.
You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There
oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego.

I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present
manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to
fail.
I  have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for
seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but piss poor at
illuminating a room.

With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by
darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector
becomes more important than the miniscule light source.
Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact.

Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per
room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early
failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs.
Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white
floors, walls, furniture, etc.

LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits,
but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to
3V.
Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost.

Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny
leads attached to LED (and IC) chips?
When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.

You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short
lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they
don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in
the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today
are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures.

Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been
insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going
to change, significantly.

Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to
insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!

I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10
year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.

Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated
metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot
before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few
blinks just prior to the failures.

You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played
along, because I knew your response was predictable.
I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't
composed by some marketing firm.

**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to
illuminate a room.
OK.. right.

My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead
and argue all you want to.

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




Site Timeline