I did correct the spelling. You didn't have to ask again.
"Strait" means "narrow" -- the jacket greatly restricts its wearer's movements. It does not hold the wearer "straight" -- quite the opposite.
d a
in
yect
O2
ungs
not
ist
as.
to
ent
he
tno
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.
s**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. **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,
**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
**Did they? Prove it.In other words you and your business pays the tax,
**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. **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
**OK. Prove it.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
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.
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.
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).
2700K which makes it a "warm white".
-- 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
**Should read:
"....Sciences and a host of other organisations are wrong."
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
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 .............
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.
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.
Some interesting findings there. Today, this dropped into my email
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
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.
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 .............
Nope, AFAIK it's straitjacket in the US also.
Jerry
It IS strait jacket, but straight is the alternate spelling.
Jeff
-- "Everything from Crackers to Coffins"
**Wrong. Luxeon emitters have been available for many years, with a 120 degree spread. **Nor does ANY light source, you nong. You may also care to note that I posted photographs that disproved your last nonsensical claim about such things. You failed to acknowledge this fact.
The reflector area needs
**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:Look at the size difference. Look at the amount of light "thrown" by each torch onto a dark wall. Which is greater? Which is the more useful, more portable torch?
When will you cease making insane, unsupportable statements?
and then the
**The results are what the designers want them to be. **So? The CPU in my computer must be attached to a heat sink. It ain't rocket science. If I dropped both torches, whilst swtiched on, the LED torch has a much better chance of survival. **This would be a pot, kettle, balck kind of moment. Your half-arsed comments are now entering into legend. Shall we review them?They can't provide a link to go directly
. but
**Sheer idiocy.**The efficiency of a 75 Watt IC almps is NOT zero. It is something like 2% ~ 5%.
then watt about a 100W..
**They MIGHT. In Winter AND if the lamps are placed floor level and/or if there are some air circulation systems in place. Either way, using IC lamps for heating is hit and miss, at best. Heat pumps are dramatically more efficient. By as much as 400%, in fact. **Any sensible designer takes such things into account. My halogen downlights are operated via similar technology to that which drives LEDs. They're reasonably well protected against damage.-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**The halogen torch is on the left.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier' that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" .... but ... I can almost see the head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and "CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.
Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly, when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries, inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart, as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that ? What kind of scientist is he ?
My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open. Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand up and be counted.
And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies, they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.
I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments, and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented. But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious hysteria that has gripped the world over it.
I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing. There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out.
Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.
Arfa
See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?
Hmmm, indeed.
Not only did these men ignore the advice of the scientists that they paid to inform them, but they actively denied the overwhelming evidence presented and decided that the people who are employed by the fossil fuel industy were correct.
That is what I call a denier.
And the "You're a smart guy" .... but
**Not at all. We've had dealings in the past and I have no issues with the term. As a technical guy, you will likely have a good grounding in science. I find it curious that you've managed to find fault with everything in the IPCC AR4 though. I tazke it that you've read the report? All 1,600 odd pages?If you think that I'm
**I'm sure you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?Do you think my position on all this has come about as a
**Possibly. Many people take such a view.I don't know what the situation is in your half of the world,
**As it should be. Many researchers have predicted that if CO2 levels reach 500ppm, positive feedback will ensue and there will be nothing humans can do to prevent catastrophic warming from occuring. At least one researcher believes that the 'tipping point' has already been reached. It would seem prudent to listen to the guys who study climatology, rather than the guys who speak for the fossil fuel industry in this matter.No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being
**Well, it would seem that, since climatologists study the climate, ignoring what they say is, at a very minimum, stupid.When I say that the case is by no means
**The Murdock controlled media claims it is all wrong. The scientific medai, OTOH, has made it's case very clear. AGW is a problem.it's reached the point now where the BBC
**Perhaps the BBC is concentrating on facts, rather than fiction. I accept that. They leave the fiction, lies and distortions to the Murdock media. Would you prefer that the BBC was more like the Murdock media? **I have no problems with charlatans being exposed. In fact, I support it.Plus the
**Given the fact that it is a very serious problem, you should expect to her a great deal about it. **No, it did not. The initial momentum came about during the early 1970s (which is when I first began reading about CO2 induced global warming in the pages of Scientific American). The warming that was occuring was begining to alarm researchers. Sometime later (1988), the IPCC was set up to investigate the measured warming.Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill
**I am familiar with the illegally obtained emails, which were carefully cherry-picked for release, in a shabby attempt to discredit some very dedicated scientists. Fortunately several independent inquiries have exonerated the scientists.It was largely as a result of
**A very good scientist, actually. Of course, if you had taken the time to investigate the matter, you might realise that the (Murdock controlled?) did a number on the CRU. **Some do. Some don't.As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
**Nope. The only people who don't accept the reality of AGW are:
Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
**Indeed. Have you read AR4? All 1600-odd pages?Fortunately, there is a recent
**Wrong. There are a very, very tiny number of climate scientists who challenge the consensus view. Most are paid by the fossil fuel industry and are, therefore, suspect. The opinions of scientists whose discipline is not climate science are not of much interest. **What are you attempting to draw a comparison here with? A wind turbine manufacturer, compared to Exxon? Yeah, right. The fossil fuel industry is extremely well-funded, entrenched and uses EXACTLY the same tactics as those employed by the tobacco industry. In fact, they use the same organisations to promote their position. THAT should send warning bells to any sane person.Do you think that for some reason, because they
**I am not talking about nice. I'm talking about science. Keep the discussion centred on the science. Personalities are a spurious issue.Not prepared to have people in their pay to say what they need them
**Some people say what they're paid to say and some say what they believe. And some say what the science says. They're the scientists and they are the only ones I care about.If the whole man-made global warming argument were to collapse,
**You may as well ask what would happen if NASA admitted that the Moon landing was bullshit. It happened. Global warming is happening. The trend is impossible to refute. **Call it 95% certainty. That's close enough for me. If my local fire authorities suggested that there was a 95% probability that my home would be destroyed in a bushfire within the next 10 years, I'd make certain my insurance policy covered such an event. Are you one of those people who prefers to cling to the 5% possibility? I call that dumb.That is your prerogative.
**Have you read AR4?I don't have a
**It's science, not religion.**Just a reminder: We're discussing CLIMATE change, not the daily weather. **NO ONE EVER said that humans were solely responsible. The Sun is the major driver of climate on this planet. CO2 is _a_ driver of climate. A small one. Small, but significant. CO2 is not insignificant.
There are many other factors that
**Have you read AR4?**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
The reports are here:
I've only read the one on the physical science basis.
The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013 thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous reports.
"...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable development, risk management and the framing of a response through both adaptation and mitigation." In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what to do. I can't wait.
-- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.