An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:

Say Michael,

Can you elaborate on this? Is the thinking something like, "well, if you start working, clearly you're not 100% 'disabled' now, are you? -- so we're doing to start reducing your pension!" -- Or something similarly ridiculous?

---Joel

Any paid work at all, and I lose both the pension, and the zero co-pay on medication. IOW, it's all or nothing with the VA. My military medical records are missing, so i had to apply for 'non service connected'. If it was the 'service connected' I should be receiving, I would get over three times what I do, and be allowed dental care. They would give me a power wheelchair and custom van every three years, as well.

BTW, I tried to connect a printer to that last Mandriva Linux computer you sent me, and it wants the administrator password. Could you e-mail me about it?

That sucks. :-(

Sheesh... you'd think they'd give you the benefit of the doubt in such cases since presumably it was the government that lost your medical records?

It sounds like you'd have a really good case here for getting some news program interested in demonstrating how servicemen get unfairly screwed over...

(I am happy to see that some states are now waiving or heavily subsidizing college tuition for servicemen, and that a ton of money was allocated a few months back for those who served post-9/11.)

Mmm... try "password" (without quotes)? If it's not that, let me know and I'll try to remember what else it might be.

---Joel

On the 160 lm/W prototype, noted on the graph as a Cree one: Can you cite a link to it? I frequently check into the "Press Room" section of Cree's website and I have yet to hear of this.

On the statement that 150-160 lumen/watt LEDs will be in production within 1 or 2 years: It appeared to me to take 3 years from announcement of a prototype to availability of production units for 60 lumens/watt.

You state that 1, 3 and 5 watt HPLEDs have efficacies 10 times more than that of incandescents. Ones achieving 80-100 lumens/watt do so at 350 mA, which means slightly over 1 watt. Efficacy is less at higher currents, even with Cree XRE, Seoul Semiconductor P4, and Lumileds Luxeon Rebel and Luxeon K2/TFFC. For example, according to Lumileds' "DS60" datasheet, the top rank of Luxeon K2/TFFC has typical output of 170 lumens at 700 mA (and typical voltage drop around 3.5 volts), for 69 lumens/watt. This figure decreases as current increases from there. The best avauilable from Cree are a little better.

I have yet to know of an available 3 watt LED that achieves 100 lumens/watt at 3 watts. Can you cite one that I can buy?

As for that chart showing among other things percentage of light from the lamp exiting the luminaire ("efficienza corpo radiante"), where does the 30-50% figure for incandescents, repeated for halogens, come from? That chart also has this being 50-60% for CFLs but 95% for LEDs.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Obviously MT should be allowed to work. That could only be good for everyone.

That's the problem with dictates from afar--a bunch of inflexible rules made by people not on the scene, to try and lock out the undeserving.

The main effect being to inconvenience the honest people.

I recently heard of a socialized medicine setup I might even endorse: a city in Texas decided to offer their own. Locally controlled, easily changed by the people in it, responsive to their needs and desires. Offered for $40/month to any employed person who wants it.

The key being that it's theirs, and under their control. No national fights in Congress over benefits, who's eligible, illegal immigrants, etc., no need to convince Nancy Pelosi, the NEA, or whoever.

This could be BS though--I heard of it 3rd-hand by word-of-mouth; haven't verified the details yet.

Cheers, James Arthur

On the 160 lm/W prototype, noted on the graph as a Cree one: Can you cite a link to it? I frequently check into the "Press Room" section of Cree's website and I have yet to hear of this.

On the statement that 150-160 lumen/watt LEDs will be in production within 1 or 2 years: It appeared to me to take 3 years from announcement of a prototype to availability of production units for 60 lumens/watt.

That article states that 1, 3 and 5 watt HPLEDs have efficacies 10 times more than that of incandescents. Ones achieving 100 lumens/watt do so at 350 mA, which means slightly over 1 watt. 60 watt "standard" and "soft white" 120V A19 incandescents achieve 14-14.8 lumens/watt and 100 watt ones achieve 16.9-17.5. Efficacy is less at higher currents, even with Cree XRE, Seoul Semiconductor P4, and Lumileds Luxeon Rebel and Luxeon K2/TFFC. For example, according to Lumileds' "DS60" datasheet, the top rank of Luxeon K2/TFFC has typical output of 170 lumens at 700 mA (and typical voltage drop around 3.5 volts), for 69 lumens/watt. This figure decreases as current increases from there. The best avauilable from Cree are a little better.

I have yet to know of an available 3 watt LED that achieves 100 lumens/watt at 3 watts. Can you cite one that I can buy?

As for that chart showing among other things percentage of light from the lamp exiting the luminaire ("efficienza corpo radiante"), where does the 30-50% figure for incandescents, repeated for halogens, come from? That chart also has this being 50-60% for CFLs but 95% for LEDs.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

On the 160 lm/W prototype, noted on the graph as a Cree one: Can you cite a link to it? I frequently check into the "Press Room" section of Cree's website and I have yet to hear of this.

On the statement that 150-160 lumen/watt LEDs will be in production within 1 or 2 years: It appeared to me to take 3 years from announcement of a prototype to availability of production units for 60 lumens/watt.

That article states that 1, 3 and 5 watt HPLEDs have efficacies 10 times more than that of incandescents. Ones achieving 100 lumens/watt do so at 350 mA, which means slightly over 1 watt. 60 watt "standard" and "soft white" 120V A19 incandescents achieve 14-14.8 lumens/watt and 100 watt ones achieve 16.9-17.5. Efficacy is less at higher currents, even with Cree XRE, Seoul Semiconductor P4, and Lumileds Luxeon Rebel and Luxeon K2/TFFC. For example, according to Lumileds' "DS60" datasheet, the top rank of Luxeon K2/TFFC has typical output of 170 lumens at 700 mA (and typical voltage drop around 3.5 volts), for 69 lumens/watt. This figure decreases as current increases from there. The best avauilable from Cree are a little better.

I have yet to know of an available 3 watt LED that achieves 100 lumens/watt at 3 watts. Can you cite one that I can buy?

As for that chart showing among other things percentage of light from the lamp exiting the luminaire ("efficienza corpo radiante"), where does the 30-50% figure for incandescents, repeated for halogens, come from? That chart also has this being 50-60% for CFLs but 95% for LEDs.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Absolutely.

Unless they contracted with doctors themselves, I suspect that $40/month isn't nearly enough for them to break even, unfortunately.

On the other hand, Wal*Mart clinics supposedly run ~$40-$65, which is not that much more than some co-pays (it's $35/visit on the plan I have at work, and it's counted as a "visit" even when you go to do something like pick up lab test results and have the doctor spend literally less than 3 minutes with you to tell you, "everything's fine").

---Joel

"Executive" care is being offered by doctors in the Phoenix area for $1K/year. They claim the number of patients they need to see per day has dropped by 2/3 and their income is UP.

...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Does that cover just seeing doctors? Or does it include some degree of lab work, procedures, etc.?

$1k/year sounds entirely reasonable for "basic" care. Certainly many (possibly most) businesses are spending a lot more than that on their covered employees.

---Joel

As far as I know it just the cost of the doctor... I'm on Medicare plus Mutual of Omaha Plan-F supplemental ($400/month for the both of us), so I get very good service... zero additional cost.

...Jim Thompson

A nit it may be. Kaleeforneeyah requires recycling of all fluorescent lamps. And they do mean all.

Get another doctor. Mine just has the receptionist call with negative results.

Yes, it is hard to disrespect 50,000 to 100,000 power on hours life.

No, refraining from working is the price that MT has agreed to pay for the disability money.

The guy that pays the piper calls the tune.

Cheers! Rich

In extremis, you could always use a live version. Mount the / and /etc as needed and edit the passwd and shadow files as needed. Then set the administrator passwords as you please.

No kidding, both me and my employer are spending about $200/mo each for about that level of care. Of course that includes major medical as well, which could be significant added risk.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in news:E9OdndpoQ8FseQ3VnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

That's also true, but it doesn't negate what I said. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are probably many additional variations on the general theme, and combinations thereof, as well. I don't ever pretend that I'm writing some sort of comprehensive thesis - that simply can't be done in a venue such as this, even if one *is* an expert/scholar in the particular topic being discussed - I only try to offer one or a few examples of whatever I'm trying to illustrate, as thougt experiments and/or points to consider.

Sure there are men like that. There are plenty who beleive they have a divine right to reporduce by rape, too. But certainly not ALL are like that. ((Same goes with women - self-centeredness, willful ignorance, and other negative traits which I'll just summarize as "overall suckiness" are by no means the exclusive purview of any particular chromosomal configuration, gender iddentity, or sexual preference.)) I just think that one needs to be receptive to individuality/individuals, and be wary of the very-human tendency to generalize - I say "very human", because generalization, after all, is a very useful tool for making sense fo the world - teh human brain categorizes and organizes what it perceives; that's part of how one learns from experience - one encounter with an angry wasp (as an admittedly simple example) is enough for one to quickly generalize that experience and stay as far away as possible away from *all* wasps. As in all things, extremes tend to be at best not useful, and at worst destructive.

That's pretty much my main point: be wary of generalizing - it's human, it's part fo learning, and we all do it, but taken to an extreme, it's often not a good thing.

It might be what you intended, but what I perceived in your post *seemed to me* to be a sense of fatalism or determinism. That's not intended as any sort fo a"put down" or any such nonsense, it's just *what I perceived*, and I can only address what I perceive.

That's why I try to talk to the points people make, and avoid tha ll-too- populat Ad-Hominem Attack. It's just a factthat this is a very imperfect form of communication, becasue all one sees is typing - no body language, no facial expressions. Also, differences in writing styles and vocabulary can in and of themselves lead to mis-communication. So it's very easy to miss a writer's intent. THat's not at all a matter of someone being "stupid" - people who are stupid can't produce well-crafted sentences.

So, my main point is just that I don't accept determinism - if nothing else, the fact that I'm here disproves it, and I therefore have something of a compulsion to express my wariness of it, when I perceive it. That being said, however, I also know at least some of th huge obstacles that exist in terms of (1) realizing tht choices exist; (2) understanding how to make choices; and (3) getting into a position, be it financially, socially, psychologically, and so on, to make a choice. The obstacles aren't insurmountable, and yet, there *is* such a thing as accountability, but circumstances have a large influence.

If I misread, then I'll admit the error; I certainly accept "some". Heck, some people also choose self-destructive lifestyles despite have a great many advantages, and even good parents. IOW, true, some are just whacked in the head.

I'm not trying to split hairs. I was going on my perception, and if I

Arrrgh, don't shout.

I'ts not "right" versus "wrong" per se; I'm saying that what might appear to someone in one culture as being one thing might in mean something very different in another culture, and that people in general, and I'd hazard to guess especially uneducated peole, tend to have rather huge blind spots where things like tradition and culture/cultural history are concerned. THat's as true in First World societies as it is in Third World societies. All I'm saying is that one has to separate tradition/culture, from things like laziness and willful ignorance - culture and tradition *are* slow to change, however, education can influence certain aspects of it in a helpful way; OTOH, a deliberate and conscious decision to be lazy and remain ignorant (and/or pursue self-destructive actions) is almost impossible to change.

So, of course I'm not going to say I'm "wrong" in pointing out that all poverty (and/or other bad personal situations) around the world can't be chalked up to personal choice; I'm also not saying there is no such thing as choice. I'm saying that *education* (which was the original point I was addressing) can't work if one works on the assumption that poeple are only poor becuase they choose to be, becasue it just isn't that simple.

Assuming they perceive that they can.

THat's a whole different question. Also, there is the problem that all too often, "help' means "send food and money" - when that does nto include educating people re: how to help themselves, all that results is dependency, which in turn mostyl seems to turn into resentment.

THat's certainly valid and admirable.

Again, tho', my own intent wasn't to attack, and it was a miscommunication on my part if what I wrote came across as such. At this point, I better understand what you were saying, and I think we're actually in agreement, and what occurred was a comn\bination of "communication clash" (different styles and so on) and misperception.

OK, that was a really bad example on my part, I'll take ownership of that.

No, all I meant was that, when someone grows up with such deficiencies, they tend to have inadequate decision-making skills.

Provisions could be made, yes, but many die without any assistance - ina way, their decision is "am I more likely to die here, or die while trying to get there". Those are the sort of poeple I feel badly for. THey were living their own lives in their villages, basically on their own, maybe a little trade with some distant town, and were disrupted because of this or that group of genocidal maniacs. But as above, nto saying you said this or that, but just pointing out as a continuation of my own thought, "help" isn't jsut doing the usual and throwign food and money at them - that's at best a stopgap measure; real help is giving them a hand to get back to living their own independent lives.

That makes it very difficult. I didn't say imposible. It's a factor that ahs to be taken into account when one is an educator.

All one can do is try. I just believe in the "try" part. Sometimes it takes effort, is all. It's just a personal matter of hope.