Re: Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Lostgallifreyan]

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.

It's a physical law that shorter wavelengths render finer detail. To read
or do fine work or hobby activity we need that. People read when relaxing,
and they might use low colour temperatures while doing it, but need a lot
of that light to get enough shortwave light to comfortably avoid eyestrain.

If they use a higher colour temperature they will find the same comfort as
with lower colour temperatures, and at lesser expense.

That's founded in laws of physics, anatomy, and economy. You can stick to
the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert that
there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such effort
doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

 

[Albert Manfredi]

You can stick to
the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert
that
there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such
effort
doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

So, I take it, you are not willing or able to speculate why humans tend
to be repulsed by rotten-smelling food, or why they might feel a sense
of threat when hearing a prolonged, deep bass sound? Or why guys tend
not to be attracted to overly heavy or, conversely, undernourished
women? All these things are just chalked up as arbitrary "preferences?"

Bert

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

So, I take it, you are not willing or able to speculate why humans tend
to be repulsed by rotten-smelling food, or why they might feel a sense
of threat when hearing a prolonged, deep bass sound? Or why guys tend
not to be attracted to overly heavy or, conversely, undernourished
women? All these things are just chalked up as arbitrary "preferences?"

Bert

Some preferences are better founded than others. It makes no sense to pick
arbitrary examples as a way to deal with one specific one.

 

[JANA]

Before you call someone an idiot, you should do some research. You are
looking like the fool, not me.

--

JANA
_____

I just found out something this morning with the policies of these CFL
lamps. The governments are going to put in place programs for the handling
and disposal of the warn out and damaged CFL's. It seems that they have
no
idea at this time of what this plan will be.

In Europe it's called WEEE but it's fucked up.

One speculation is that they will be sending them off to a third world
country
to be disposed of.

You're an idiot.

Graham

 

[JANA]

I would recommend you do some thinking before typing (talking).

If you lease the batteries, in the end someone has to pay for them, and it
will not be owner. In any case, the owner has to make his money back, plus a
profit. When the batteries are no longer useful, the owner is going to have
to dispose of the batteries somewhere!!!

--

JANA
_____

As for the consumer, if he wants to keep his car, the battery replacement
cost is going to be in the average range of $6000 US. If he trades his
car
with the used batteries, this cost will be deducted from the trade-in
value.

The simple and obvious way to deal with this is by leasing the battery, not
owning it.

Graham

 

[JANA]

There have been publications about the energy usage to make ethanol. You
should research this out before making comments!

--

JANA
_____

When making ethanol fuel from corn, the energy used, is more than what can
be had from the ethanol.

You're full of crap aren't you ?

The pollution caused from burning ethanol is worse
than from petrol.

Utter nonsense.

Graham

 

[JANA]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!


These are independent and proven reports about the environmental problems
with ethanol. The companies that are making the ethanol are like cigarette
companies. They are saying the opposite! But, it has been proven in the
past, that breathing the fumes from burning alcohol can induce asthma, and
other health complications. It is also believed by many health researchers
that the fumes from ethanol can cause cancer.

http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1713

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2007/41/i11/abs/es062085v.html



It takes more energy and causes more pollution to make ethanol, than what it
can deliver back as energy! Not only does the conversion process use more
energy, but there is a lot of energy used to grow, produce, harvest,
process, and transport, the corn to make the ethanol in the first place.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL

http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm



The ethanol producers, and the corn growers are all for this industry for
obvious reasons. In the mean time, the public, will pay in the end.

Between petrol and diesel, the diesel is actually cleaner burning even
though it may have an odour to it. The odour is caused because the diesel is
more pure oil and produces more carbon. Carbon will settle back to the
ground, and over time it will recycle itself. The fumes from petrol are more
dangerous than diesel. But, ethanol fumes are the most dangerous.

--

JANA
_____

The pollution caused from burning ethanol is worse
than from petrol.

Do you have a reference for this?

The chemicals released from the burned ethanol are
dangerous for people with respiratory problems.

So is petrol, diesel is worse still.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!

And maybe you should read that I simply asked for a reference and stated
that diesel and petrol also cause health problems.
So as usual everything is a health risk, debate can only seriously be made
on the relative levels of the risk/problems. That first requires more
accurate research to be done which is not funded by vested interests. A
major problem in most cases.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

I think everyone is saying the same thing, yet there seems to be
disagreement. I'd only add to this that when people predominantly
"choose to" behave in a particular way, rather than in some other way,
there's probably a good reason why.

Sure, what that reason is, and even how rational it is, may be open to
debate.
Mostly people choose what is readily available at an affordable price. The
manufacturers/marketing people have as much to do with this as any absolute
superiority.
And market timing plays a big part in whether something becomes widely
established, and how superior something else must be to supercede it.

For example, if people "choose to" dislike food that smells like decay,
there is probably a good reason why. Yes, even though there may be some
individuals who actually like decaying food.

Yes, blue vein cheese is quite popular. Even well aged meats.

There are other examples. Movies use deep bass sounds to put the
audience on edge. It conveys a sense of foreboding and alarm in people.
Again, one might suspect that if the reaction is close to universal,

Or not, discotecques use deep pounding bass to give their customers a dance
beat. Doesn't seem to drive them away

there's probably a good reason why. Not merely, "They choose to react
this way. They could just as easily react a different way."
Exactly.

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.

Or more likely just ending up with another example of the irrational
behaviour patterns of humans.

MrT.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It's a physical law that shorter wavelengths render finer detail. To
read or do fine work or hobby activity we need that. People read when
relaxing, and they might use low colour temperatures while doing it,
but need a lot of that light to get enough shortwave light to
comfortably avoid eyestrain.

The lighting requirements for a hobby area are very different from a
living room.

If they use a higher colour temperature they will find the same comfort
as with lower colour temperatures, and at lesser expense.

I've never noticed a problem reading with tungsten at normal lighting
levels. But if I did I'd provide a high colour temperature point source
for that rather than have all the lighting cold and uninviting.

That's founded in laws of physics, anatomy, and economy. You can stick
to the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert
that there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such
effort doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

At the end of the day it's down to preference. And the fact is most prefer
'warm' lighting in the home.

 

[Jules]

JANA wrote:




You're full of crap aren't you ?

Sorry eeyore,
Shocking but true.
Well not so shocking.
But what is, is the amount of water needed to do this.
Massive, beyond some states capacity, yet they are building ethanol plants.

 

[default]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!


These are independent and proven reports about the environmental problems
with ethanol. The companies that are making the ethanol are like cigarette
companies. They are saying the opposite! But, it has been proven in the
past, that breathing the fumes from burning alcohol can induce asthma, and
other health complications. It is also believed by many health researchers
that the fumes from ethanol can cause cancer.

http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1713

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2007/41/i11/abs/es062085v.html



It takes more energy and causes more pollution to make ethanol, than what it
can deliver back as energy! Not only does the conversion process use more
energy, but there is a lot of energy used to grow, produce, harvest,
process, and transport, the corn to make the ethanol in the first place.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL

http://www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm



The ethanol producers, and the corn growers are all for this industry for
obvious reasons. In the mean time, the public, will pay in the end.

Between petrol and diesel, the diesel is actually cleaner burning even
though it may have an odour to it. The odour is caused because the diesel is
more pure oil and produces more carbon. Carbon will settle back to the
ground, and over time it will recycle itself. The fumes from petrol are more
dangerous than diesel. But, ethanol fumes are the most dangerous.

Thanks

"Any government sponsored program to reduce greenhouse gases will
result in higher taxes, higher costs, and higher greenhouse gases."

We should be researching ways to convert politicians to fuel.

 

[Eeyore]

Before you call someone an idiot, you should do some research. You are
looking like the fool, not me.

You're a TOP POSTING idiot now.

You clearly know nothing about the subject in question.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I would recommend you do some thinking before typing (talking).

I recommend you stop top-posting.

If you lease the batteries, in the end someone has to pay for them, and it
will not be owner.

If it's a lease who do you mean by the 'owner' ?

Don't you even know what leasing is ?

In any case, the owner has to make his money back, plus a
profit. When the batteries are no longer useful, the owner is going to have
to dispose of the batteries somewhere!!!

You idiot.

You recycle such batteries not dispose of them.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

There have been publications about the energy usage to make ethanol. You
should research this out before making comments!

You should shut the **** up.

I've read extensively about that subject, something you clearly haven't. I'm
getting the impression you get your 'facts' from low-brow newspapers.

Stop advertsing your phenomenal ignorance.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Before you make a comment, you should research things out!

These are independent and proven reports about the environmental problems
with ethanol. The companies that are making the ethanol are like cigarette
companies.

You talk an amazing amount of CRAP.


Graham

 

[Bob Urz]

OK, it's resent to the same address that you used to post this, but from a
different one of my addresses. Attachment is a 434k PDF, which shouldn't be
a problem. Let me know that you get it ok. If any issues, just contact me
direct on the arfa daily address that I use to post here.

Arfa

Got this one. thanks.

Bob

 

[Sally]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

 

[Sally]

But the old rule to avoid unpleasant language is as valid as ever. How can
you rabbit on about top posters and still resort to foul language?

 

[Eeyore]

Without taking sides on any other issues, IMO the old rule not to top post
is out of date! It is much more appropriate in today's environment to top
post.

Not my experience.

Graham