- Interesting ... - 16 Updates
- Interesting ... - 5 Updates
- Bathroom scale - 4 Updates
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Jan 02 08:40PM -0800 On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 13:41:50 +1100, "Rod Speed" >Much more likely he doesn't actually have a fucking clue about the basics. <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/j-scott-elder/48/217/717> 28 years experience in analog IC design. 16 patents. Some of his blog articles: <http://www.planetanalog.com/archives.asp?section_id=526> Are you really qualified to judge whether he has a clue? I think not. -- 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 |
| Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com>: Jan 03 05:03AM > without fail. My newer CFLs, die like flies in comparison, particularly > in glass globe fittings. I reckon some CFLs have as short a life as > filament bulbs, even when running cool.. 35 years old? That thing must have been belt driven. The oldest ones I saw were 1990-ish and from panasonic, with a huge magnetic ballast. It was large, stupid and didn't fit in most fixtures. I can't recall what the life was, but it was put together well with lots of glass and silicone goop. There's no way in hell it was cheaper than a box of incandescent bulbs, especially when you factor in the part where electricity itself isn't really that expensive in the US. |
| "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>: Jan 03 04:23PM +1100 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote >> basics. > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/j-scott-elder/48/217/717> > 28 years experience in analog IC design. 16 patents. Clearly doesn't have a fucking clue about how to calculate how long a LED light will last compared with an incandescent. > Some of his blog articles: > <http://www.planetanalog.com/archives.asp?section_id=526> > Are you really qualified to judge whether he has a clue? Anyone is with that stupid claim about how long a LED light will last compared with an incandescent. > I think not. Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of rational thought. |
| "Henry Mydlarz" <mydhen@optusnet.com.au>: Jan 03 04:26PM +1100 "Arfa Daily" wrote in message news:Qkypw.703472$CW3.143099@fx07.am4... EE Times article that came to me by email today http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/the-big-lie-about-led-lighting.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222923405 Arfa A few months ago I bought at Aldi about eight LED bulbs to use on my 240V lighting (Australia). Three of them failed within about a month, one of them does light up occasionally. Unfortunately I could not find the receipt for them. Henry |
| Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx>: Jan 03 06:50AM On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 17:32:41 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > All this begs the question "Why did the author write the article"? Scott > That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"? My > This also begs the question "Why did I write this long rant when I http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/begging-the-question- again/?_r=0 -- My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message. Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org *lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor |
| Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>: Jan 03 09:35AM On 03/01/15 05:03, Cydrome Leader wrote: > 35 years old? That thing must have been belt driven. Philips SL probably - 35 year old this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#mediaviewer/File:Old_compact_fluorescent_lamp.JPG |
| polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk>: Jan 03 09:40AM On 03/01/2015 05:03, Cydrome Leader wrote: > 35 years old? That thing must have been belt driven. Perhaps one of the 2D lamps? Like in the link below - but maybe the specs. have been changed form the originals? http://www.amazon.co.uk/16W-Energy-Saving-Light-bulb/dp/B001N7SKVU Surely they were the precursors of the more compact CFLs? And I remember seeing a large number of them at Preston Guildhall somewhen around the mid-1980s or so. -- Rod |
| "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com>: Jan 03 09:54AM Well back in the days when i could see, I used to build stuff and used solder, but increasingly even then automation for mass produced products meant that surface mount and wire wrap techniques abounded. I'd imagine with the banning of leaded solder its more likely that machines can make better joints than humans even if they could use soldering stations easily. Back then the only folk still soldering in industry were the development types. If a pcb failed in test, then it was taken out junked and replaced. Gone are the days when simple hands on component substitution was cost effective it seems. As for led lamps, I imagine they are still in the early stages of evaluation. Nobody has had them in service long enough to refine colour temp and reliability methods. It will probably only get better though as the efficiency is so much better than alternatives, they are going to make it work. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "N_Cook" <diverse@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message news:m86csv$8eo$1@dont-email.me... |
| Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>: Jan 03 10:13AM On the subject - what *is* the best way to drive LEDs? Seems to me that whilst convenient and in line with my earlier comments on standardisation, putting little 230V PSUs in every lamp that get hot and blow up is not the best way forward. Does a 12V supply offer any advantages in terms of minimising on board electronics? 12V SELV is at least standard. If an LED has a Vf (forward voltage drop) of x volts, is it considered good form to put 12/x LEDs in series across the supply with no other limiting circuitry? Or is there a really simple 2 pin current regulator on a chip available? Old style 0.2" 20mA LEDs weren't that bothered, but I'm not au fait with high power Crees and the like. |
| "bm" <a@b.com>: Jan 03 10:22AM "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cgpcn4Fdsg6U1@mid.individual.net... > LED light will last compared with an incandescent. >> I think not. > Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of rational thought. LOL |
| "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>: Jan 03 09:31PM +1100 Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote > with the banning of leaded solder its more likely that machines can make > better joints than humans even if they could use soldering stations > easily. They still do in china as the recently posted youtube video of one of the production lines in china shows. > Back then the only folk still soldering in industry were the development > types. Not in china. > If a pcb failed in test, then it was taken out junked and replaced. Not in china. > Gone are the days when simple hands on component substitution was cost > effective it seems. Not in china. > As for led lamps, I imagine they are still in the early stages of > evaluation. Particularly with the higher powered ones. More production than evaluation tho. > Nobody has had them in service long enough to refine colour temp and > reliability methods. I doubt that is true of Cree. > It will probably only get better though Absolutely certainly. > as the efficiency is so much better than alternatives, they are going to > make it work. They already have with quite a bit of LED stuff. |
| Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>: Jan 03 10:57AM In message <m87t7j$5ai$2@reader1.panix.com>, Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> writes >> in glass globe fittings. I reckon some CFLs have as short a life as >> filament bulbs, even when running cool.. >35 years old? That thing must have been belt driven. Philips brought out a bayonet fitting CFL late '70's. Very heavy for pendant drops! Our outside lamps are CFLs fitted in 1995. No failures although they don't get much use. -- Tim Lamb |
| polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk>: Jan 03 01:03PM On 02/01/2015 19:22, William Sommerwerck wrote: > requires, study, you can't assume these products fail prematurely simply > because they contain "too many parts". Why they failed is more > important. I wouldn't be surprised if it was due to SMD soldering failure. The Haswell-E die is composed of 2.6 billion transistors. You have to achieve phenomenal component reliability for any of them to work as they leave the factory, let alone years later! Adding up everything in a typical modern PC including the display leads to even huger numbers of components. Yet we see many of them struggle on for many years until they are replaced, all too often, due to inadequate computing power (or not being able to justify the complete re-install of an updated OS on an old box) rather than component failure. -- Rod |
| polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk>: Jan 03 01:06PM On 03/01/2015 11:43, Huge wrote: > Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed. I don't know, "Profound from Latin profundus : prō-, before; see pro-1 + fundus, bottom." :-) -- Rod |
| The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>: Jan 03 02:16PM On 03/01/15 13:03, polygonum wrote: > they are replaced, all too often, due to inadequate computing power (or > not being able to justify the complete re-install of an updated OS on an > old box) rather than component failure. The deeper analysis asks the question 'what fails, and why?' In general a chip once made, wont degrade catastrophically. Its thermally stable, and any manufacturing faults show up on test or early on. Yes, RAM and other chops do age, but there is a wide tolerance before they go so far out of spec they are useless. By far the greatest killer is heat: heat accelerates ageing., death occurs in microseconds at 180C, decades at 30C -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll |
| "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net>: Jan 03 07:00AM -0800 "Huge" wrote in message news:cgq2lkFhs9bU5@mid.individual.net... >> of this group probably own them. > This is a category error. Yes, we all have 'n' year-old electronic devices, > because we have thrown away the ones that have failed. That's logically correct. But I have 40 to 50 year old Sony and KLH products that work fine. Whereas Sony stuff from the last 15 years is gradually falling apart. |
| Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>: Jan 03 11:38AM > the fact is that one can easily find electronic devices 50 and 60 years old > that have never been serviced that continue to work. Members of this group > probably own them. This is a category error. Yes, we all have 'n' year old electronic devices, because we have thrown away the ones that have failed. -- Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181 "The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics." Christopher Hitchens. |
| Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>: Jan 03 11:43AM >>Much like you then ... >>Arfa > Nothing profound has ever been said on one line. Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed. -- Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181 "The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics." Christopher Hitchens. |
| Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>: Jan 03 12:22PM In article <cgq2ufFhs9bU6@mid.individual.net>, Huge >>>Arfa >> Nothing profound has ever been said on one line. >Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed. Woddles? Awwwww. Poor old Woddles, he gets it in the neck all the time, eh? But then it's always well deserved. -- "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place." - Douglas Adams |
| Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>: Jan 03 12:22PM In article <cgq2lkFhs9bU5@mid.individual.net>, Huge >> probably own them. >This is a category error. Yes, we all have 'n' year old electronic devices, >because we have thrown away the ones that have failed. Ha! Like it, like it. -- "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689 |
| Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>: Jan 03 02:52PM >> Nothing profound has ever been said by Rod Speed. > I don't know, "Profound from Latin profundus : prō-, before; see pro-1 + > fundus, bottom." :-) LOL -- Today is Pungenday, the 3rd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181 "The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics." Christopher Hitchens. |
| "malua mada!" <fritzo2ster@gmail.com>: Jan 02 01:04PM -0800 We know it takes the thing some time to come up to speed. When person gets off the scale we turn off the display but keep the engine running for a minute or so just in case there is a multi person weighing-in session coming. Don't want the kiddies to have to wait do we... If no one else steps upon the plate we switch off for good. > As in the Dilbert world, it was probably an engineering requirement > specified by the marketing department. not a bad one IMHO |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jan 03 12:59AM -0500 On 1 Jan 2015 18:22:43 GMT, Allodoxaphobia >pound (or 2) of the last (last 2 or 3?) weighing. If so, display the >old value. It would keep the displayed values within about 2% of each >other Actually, they are exactly the same. >(for the same obsessive/compulsive person), I only reweight myself because I noticed on the other scale it could vary by 4 pounds in 10 seconds. Even Weight Watchers doesn't claim that. >and it would keep the >user from seeing different values and (mis)judging inaccuracies in the >device. Yes. And noticing that the weights for the same thing were not the same. Like with my previous scale. And it woudln't be hard to do what you say That's the sort of thing I had in mind when I posted, but Tony's answer accounts for it also. |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Jan 03 01:01AM -0500 On Thu, 01 Jan 2015 10:29:12 -0500, Ro Tund <ro.tund@corpulent.com> wrote: >On 12/31/2014 8:34 PM, micky wrote: >> When I first get on the scale, 2, 3 lower numbers flash by as it BTW, they are lower than the final number, but all only 10%, at most 20%, lower than the final number. >> or lose 4 pounds in 30 seconds.) >Our Taylor 7506 behaves like that. >Wife has always suspected Taylor programmed it that way so that they would get the #1 spot in Consumer Reports. That's 2 votes for their being sneaky, and 1 vote for it needing time to warm up. And I guess my vote is split, 1/2 - 1/2. |
| Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Jan 03 06:26AM -0600 On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 00:59:17 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> wrote: >I only reweight myself because I noticed on the other scale it could >vary by 4 pounds in 10 seconds. Even Weight Watchers doesn't claim >that. Get one of these. I had one when I was losing weight about 25 years ago. You won't ever need another scale. No guessing. http://tinyurl.com/nhe76ap |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment