sci.electronics.repair - 25 new messages in 5 topics - digest

sci.electronics.repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 19 messages, 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* Tek 7000 Series Fixtures 067-0655-00 vs 067-0589-00 fixtures - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/2ab39c9efbfedb88?hl=en
* unijunction needed - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/ecf807243db79a90?hl=en
* Suitable Substitute for Freon TF Solvent - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c078d4094e8d81a8?hl=en
* PRIYAMANI SPICY PHOTOS IN COW GIRL - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/5fc615edb0b4fb3f?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:34 am
From: "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

== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 1:23 pm
From: Jerry Peters

In sci.electronics.repair kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Nope, AFAIK it's straitjacket in the US also.

Jerry

== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 1:46 pm
From: "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

== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 1:47 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Phil Allison wrote:

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

It definitely keeps you so pissed off that you can't spell words like
'best'.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 1:54 pm
From: Jeffrey Angus

On 9/26/2011 3:23 PM, Jerry Peters wrote:
> Nope, AFAIK it's straitjacket in the US also.

It IS strait jacket, but straight is the alternate spelling.

Jeff

--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"

== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 2:39 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Wild_Bill wrote:
> Your point wrt LEDs only having limited directional output is
> important, for most of the commonly available types.

**Wrong. Luxeon emitters have been available for many years, with a 120
degree spread.

> 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,

**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
> to be about 30-50x that of the LED lens to throw much light for any
> distance (counterproductive for a compact design)..

**Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:

http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/

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
> results are a bright spot surrounded by a much dimmer halo.

**The results are what the designers want them to be.

> Also, the higher output devices need to be attached to heatsinks.

**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.

>
> The EE Times article image is half-assed, at best, and where do they
> get writers/reporters today?

**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
> 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.

**No, it is not. Read the cite again. CAREFULLY. Don't try to interpret what
is written.

. 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).

**Sheer idiocy.

>
> 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,

**The efficiency of a 75 Watt IC almps is NOT zero. It is something like 2%
~ 5%.

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.

**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.

>
> 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.

**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

== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 2:42 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> **Here is a photo of the two torches from my previous posting:
>
> http://s1112.photobucket.com/albums/k497/Zaphod1000/
>
> Look at the size difference.

**The halogen torch is on the left.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 6:14 pm
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...
> 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=10051&N=542102+90401&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&cm_sp=Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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

== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 6:32 pm
From: Jeßus

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:14:53 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
<arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>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.

<snip>

>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.

See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?

Hmmm, indeed.

== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 7:46 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Arfa Daily wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9e9o9qFmk9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> 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=10051&N=542102+90401&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&cm_sp=Electrical-_-LightBulbs-_-CatHighlight-_-CFLs
>>
>> 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. 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 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.

**I was EXTREMELY careful in my use of the term 'denier'. I did not call you
a denier (though you may well be - or not). I called John Howard (and his
government) and George W Bush deniers. I was quite specific. John Howard was
a lawyer and a politician. He has little knowledge of scientific matters.
George W Bush was/is a drug-addled college drop-out, whose daddy managed to
keep him out of gaol and then became a politician. His knowledge of
scientific matters was/is virtually non-existent. Both these men employed a
bunch of very smart climate scientists (the EPA, NASA, US Academy of
Sciences - in the US. CSIRO, BoM, Australian Academy of Science - in
Australia) to inform them on the situation regarding climate change (aka:
global warming) and the relevance of human influence. ALL these
organisations informed both men that there was almost no doubt that human
induced global warming was a serious problem that needed to be addressed.

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
> ... I can almost see the head sadly shaking.

**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
> so smart, do you honestly believe that I never do any reading on all
> this ?

**I'm sure you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?

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 ?

**Possibly. Many people take such a view.

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.

**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
> screamed down as a "denier".

**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
> proven, except in the media,

**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
> don't basically carry any news that might present an alternate view.

**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?

> 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.

**I have no problems with charlatans being exposed. In fact, I support it.

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.

**Given the fact that it is a very serious problem, you should expect to her
a great deal about it.

>
> Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
> models.

**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
> 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.

**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
> 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 ?

**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.

>
> My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
> situation.

**Some do. Some don't.

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.

**Nope. The only people who don't accept the reality of AGW are:

* Idiots.
* Religious nutters.
* Fossil fuel apologists.
* Those who are too lazy to read the best information on the issue (AR4).

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.

**Indeed. Have you read AR4? All 1600-odd pages?

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.

**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.

>
> 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 ?

**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
> are greenies, they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel
> ?

**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
> to ?

**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,
> 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.

**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.

>
> I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made
> global warming is made with 100% certainty.

**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.
> But please understand that I, and many others also read the same data
> and arguments, and arrive at a different conclusion.

**Have you read AR4?

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.

**It's science, not religion.

>
> I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
> changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history.

**Just a reminder: We're discussing CLIMATE change, not the daily weather.

> 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.

**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
> 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.

**Have you read AR4?

>
> 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.

**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 8:32 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.

The reports are here:
<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml>
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.
<http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
"...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

== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 9:03 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
>
> The reports are here:
> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml>
> 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.
> <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
> "...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.

**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant and will
be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry. There is
certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on the way
to reduce CO2 emissions.

Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will
be too little too late.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:24 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:03:13 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> **Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
>>
>> The reports are here:
>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml>
>> 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.
>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
>> "...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.

>**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
>appropriate course/s of action.

True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:
<http://woods.stanford.edu/?q=research/surveys-climate-energy/climate-views-elections>

>They are not likely to be pleasant and will
>be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry.

Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the
issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.

>There is
>certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on the way
>to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If
we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution
sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.

>Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will
>be too little too late.

As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that
the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will
certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human
activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very
appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an
end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding
reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that
we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it
today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular
concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing
quite nicely.

Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.

--
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

== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:27 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:03:13 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
>>>
>>> The reports are here:
>>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml>
>>> 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.
>>> <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
>>> "...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.
>
>> **No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
>> appropriate course/s of action.
>
> True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
> Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:
> <http://woods.stanford.edu/?q=research/surveys-climate-energy/climate-views-elections>
>
>> They are not likely to be pleasant and will
>> be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry.
>
> Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
> everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
> 5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the
> issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.
>
>> There is
>> certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on
>> the way to reduce CO2 emissions.
>
> Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
> has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If
> we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution
> sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.
>
>> Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
>> action will be too little too late.
>
> As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
> I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that
> the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will
> certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human
> activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very
> appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an
> end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding
> reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that
> we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it
> today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular
> concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing
> quite nicely.
>
> Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
> if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
> instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
> same mistake with AGW.

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
the ability of the population of this planet to pay.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:47 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
>downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
>climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
>the ability of the population of this planet to pay.

No downside? What about the economic downside? If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end, many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned, and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced. I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their 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 the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.

--
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

== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:48 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Jeff Liebermann"

> I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
> if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
> instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
> same mistake with AGW.

** Ever hear of Politician's Logic ??

It goes like this:

A group of politicians is confronted with what looks like a serious problem.

They say to each other:

" This is just terrible - we must do SOMETHING "

Then a rather obvious suggestion is made and they all latch onto it saying:

" This is SOMETHING therefore we MUST do it !! "

... Phil

== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:57 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no
>> serious downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent.
>> If all the climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then
>> the costs may exceed the ability of the population of this planet to
>> pay.
>
> No downside? What about the economic downside?

**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not
onerous. As we move foreward, those costs will increase. Possibly more
importantly, there are some potential upsides for many new industries.

If we went on a major
> global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
> transportation would come to an end,

**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.

many inherently inefficient
> industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned,

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
$400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
menton the massive profits.

and production
> of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
> fertilizer) would be drastically reduced.

**That would depend on the measures that are taken.

I'm sure the IPCC has
> recognized this downside, which might explain their 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 the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
> downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
> nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
> vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
> said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
> mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
> but the patient died" comes to mind.

**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement
programmes. The alternative is, however, utterly unthinkable.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 11:00 pm
From: kreed

On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> **Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
>
> > The reports are here:
> > <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_report...>
> > 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.
> > <http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
> > "...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.
>
> **No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
> appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant and will
> be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry. There is
> certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on the way
> to reduce CO2 emissions.
>

That is a very scientific observation.
We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.

> Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will
> be too little too late.
>

Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of controlling
us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it straight in the bin,
cut the big guys out of controlling everything (including both sides
of our government and media) stop them from creating artificial
shortages of resources in order to fleece us, and stop worrying about
lies and lead productive lives.

> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 11:43 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
>Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
>point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.
>
>* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
>Australia).
>* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
>* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
>approximately $200.00/Tonne.
>* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
>* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
>$400.00/Tonne.
>* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
>* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
>reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
>profitable.
>
>The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
>menton the massive profits.

Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf>
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf>
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf>

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?

--
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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tek 7000 Series Fixtures 067-0655-00 vs 067-0589-00 fixtures
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/2ab39c9efbfedb88?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 11:26 am
From: sck0006

For anyone interested, the problem was indeed the jig. There is a "50
Ohm Follower" board that is built into the mainframe, and that is the
primary difference between the 067-0655-00 and the 067-0589-00. We
bypassed the jig by purchasing a used mainframe and pulling the coax
signal lines to the outside of the scope body. It's sad to scrap a
scope like that, but the jig cost ~$3000.00, and a used mainframe is
$300 and has two voltage follower boards. Hope this helps someone,
but I have a feeling there's not a whole lot of 7000 series mainframe
calibration going on anymore.

Steve

On Aug 30, 7:56 am, sck0006 <skam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're running through the calibration on our 067-0587-10 Standardizers
> and they're failing frequency response. All points lead to the
> 067-0655-00 fixture going bad, which we only have one of. We tried to
> substitute the 067-0589-00 fixture in place of it and pull the + & -
> signals off of it, but the frequency response was even worse, on the
> order of -12% at points. What is the main difference between the
> 067-0655-00 and the 067-0589-00? The 0655 looks like they've spent
> significant effort shielding the pickoff points, and the 0589 has a
> little more unshielded coax showing. However, the flexible extender
> board has a similar amount of unshielded coax to the 0589 and seems to
> pass the signals just fine. Is it just the rolloff of the coax used
> in the 0589?
>
> Are there any engineers out there that worked on the 7000's still
> around?
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: unijunction needed
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/ecf807243db79a90?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 6:43 pm
From: alp soandso

Jeff,
I don't use newsgroups very often. I hope I have done something taboo by
crossposting. As a matter of fact, there are some interesting links in a
reply in that other group.

Charles, Thanks. Every little bit helps.
Yes, perhaps one of those will work. Electronics is not my strong suit.
I'll have a bit of a time figuring out which one.

Thanks for the replies!

Alp

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suitable Substitute for Freon TF Solvent
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c078d4094e8d81a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 7:45 pm
From: RL Anderson

Hi Folks,

Many years ago, while I was a telephone central office technician, I
used to use a lot of Freon TF solvent. I really loved using it because
it did such a great job.

Fast forward to today. I realize that this solvent has not been
available for quite some time. I would like to "pick the brains" of the
gurus in the group on what solvent is available that is almost as good
as Freon TF. I have some cleaning that needs to be done and most of the
available solvents, from some comments I have checked out, are not up to
the job.

Any assistance would be greatly helpful.

Thanks much.

Rick

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 8:39 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:45:43 -0700, RL Anderson
<RLAnderson@arczip.com> wrote:

>Many years ago, while I was a telephone central office technician, I
>used to use a lot of Freon TF solvent. I really loved using it because
>it did such a great job.
>
>Fast forward to today. I realize that this solvent has not been
>available for quite some time. I would like to "pick the brains" of the
>gurus in the group on what solvent is available that is almost as good
>as Freon TF. I have some cleaning that needs to be done and most of the
>available solvents, from some comments I have checked out, are not up to
>the job.

What are you cleaning? Any chlorinated hydrocarbon solvent will work,
but it might also attack the material you're trying to clean.

CaiKleen NF
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl/ctype.KB/it.I/id.394/KB.218/.f>
<http://store.caig.com/s.nl?sc=2&category=&ctype=KB&KB=218&search=CaiKleen%20NF>
I haven't tried the stuff (yet).

--
# 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

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 8:46 pm
From: Winston

RL Anderson wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Many years ago, while I was a telephone central office technician, I
> used to use a lot of Freon TF solvent. I really loved using it because
> it did such a great job.
>
> Fast forward to today. I realize that this solvent has not been
> available for quite some time. I would like to "pick the brains" of the
> gurus in the group on what solvent is available that is almost as good
> as Freon TF. I have some cleaning that needs to be done and most of the
> available solvents, from some comments I have checked out, are not up to
> the job.

Try naphtha. Be very careful because it is flammable
and extremely volatile. Use lots of ventilation.

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926175

--Winston

==============================================================================
TOPIC: PRIYAMANI SPICY PHOTOS IN COW GIRL
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/5fc615edb0b4fb3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 26 2011 10:38 pm
From: SRAVANTHI LOVE

FOR GOOD JOBS SITES TO YOU
http://goodjobssites.blogspot.com/

FOR FAST UPDATES IN TELUGU FILM INDUSTRY
OOSARAVELLI MOVIE STILLS
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/09/oosarvelli-stills.html
TAMIL ACTRESS HOT PHOTO SHOOT
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/08/tamil-actress.html
SOUTH INDIAN HOT ACTRESS PICS
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/08/hot-actress.html
DEEPIKA PADUKONE IN DUM MARO DUM MOVIE
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/08/deepika-in-dum-maro-dum.html
PRIYAMANI SPICY PHOTOS IN COW GIRL
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/02/priyamani-spicy-photo-shoot-cow-girl.html
KAJAL HOT PHOTOS IN SAREE
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/06/kajal-very-spice-pics.html