| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352773 is a reply to message #352574] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 08:42   |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:18:16 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 21:50:58 -0600
>>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gotta say, CFLs were a stopgap measure that should never have come to
>>>> market. OK, they were more efficient than incandescents, but had huge
>>>> negatives (mercury...), so we would have been better off waiting.
>>>
>>> Nobody could have predicted the rate at which LED efficiency rose
>>> or even that it could get so good and the mercury was never a real problem.
>>
>> Except that in much of the US you're not allowed to toss the damned
>> things when they fail, you are supposed to take them to a hazardous
>> material disposal site.
>>
>> The idiot Congresscriters who voted in favor of that mandate deserve
>> the worst fate one can imagine.
>>
>
> That'll be the day. They should have a "hazardous waste" pickup once a
> month or so, rather than expecting us to drive to the site with a couple of
> lightbulbs or half a bucket of paint.
Around here, we just drop fluorescents at any hardware store/borg/lowes;
they're required by law to take them back for recycling gratis.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352774 is a reply to message #352631] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 08:46 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:22:29 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm talking about the mandate that makes us use the pieces of crap in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> That is definitely not what was said.
>>
>> But, no matter.
>>
>> Those congress critters never did _mandate_ their use either.
>
> No, only made it illegal to make the old fashioned kind of light bulbs
> that you could toss without guilt or concern over environmental
> regulations.
No they didn't. They simply applied efficiency standards to them, which
resulted in the availability of 55w incandescents instead of 60w.
> If the Congressmorons had been willing to just wait for the market,
> old fashioned incandescents would be dying a natural death about now.
Or LED's wouldn't yet exist.....
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352841 is a reply to message #352774] |
Mon, 18 September 2017 23:49 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:46:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:22:29 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> I'm talking about the mandate that makes us use the pieces of crap in
>>>> the first place.
>>>
>>> That is definitely not what was said.
>>>
>>> But, no matter.
>>>
>>> Those congress critters never did _mandate_ their use either.
>>
>> No, only made it illegal to make the old fashioned kind of light bulbs
>> that you could toss without guilt or concern over environmental
>> regulations.
>
> No they didn't. They simply applied efficiency standards to them, which
> resulted in the availability of 55w incandescents instead of 60w.
Yes, they did. Those "efficient" bulbs are of a different and more
costly design.
>> If the Congressmorons had been willing to just wait for the market,
>> old fashioned incandescents would be dying a natural death about now.
>
> Or LED's wouldn't yet exist.....
LEDs existed long before the Congresscritters and their moronic law.
And the drivers for making them brighter would still be
there--television illumination, cell phones, etc, not to mention
portable and automotive lighting.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352843 is a reply to message #352841] |
Tue, 19 September 2017 00:00 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:46:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:22:29 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> > I'm talking about the mandate that makes us use the pieces of crap in
>>>> > the first place.
>>>>
>>>> That is definitely not what was said.
>>>>
>>>> But, no matter.
>>>>
>>>> Those congress critters never did _mandate_ their use either.
>>>
>>> No, only made it illegal to make the old fashioned kind of light bulbs
>>> that you could toss without guilt or concern over environmental
>>> regulations.
>>
>> No they didn't. They simply applied efficiency standards to them, which
>> resulted in the availability of 55w incandescents instead of 60w.
>
> Yes, they did. Those "efficient" bulbs are of a different and more
> costly design.
They didn't directly mandate a change in technology. The mandated a
level of efficiency that conventional incandescents couldn't meet.
>>> If the Congressmorons had been willing to just wait for the market,
>>> old fashioned incandescents would be dying a natural death about now.
>>
>> Or LED's wouldn't yet exist.....
>
> LEDs existed long before the Congresscritters and their moronic law.
> And the drivers for making them brighter would still be
> there--television illumination, cell phones, etc, not to mention
> portable and automotive lighting.
On this one, I agree with you. LEDs were advancing as quickly as r&d
could develop them. It's very unlikely that the efficiency standards
made any difference to them.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352853 is a reply to message #352841] |
Tue, 19 September 2017 08:31 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:46:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>> No they didn't. They simply applied efficiency standards to them, which
>> resulted in the availability of 55w incandescents instead of 60w.
>
> Yes, they did. Those "efficient" bulbs are of a different and more
> costly design.
Cite?
>
>>> If the Congressmorons had been willing to just wait for the market,
>>> old fashioned incandescents would be dying a natural death about now.
>>
>> Or LED's wouldn't yet exist.....
>
> LEDs existed long before the Congresscritters and their moronic law.
Man, you are bitter, aren't you. Clearly the LED's I referred to are
those that are currently replacing CFL's and icandescent consumer
lamps.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352882 is a reply to message #352853] |
Tue, 19 September 2017 21:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:31:00 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:46:27 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>
>>> No they didn't. They simply applied efficiency standards to them, which
>>> resulted in the availability of 55w incandescents instead of 60w.
>>
>> Yes, they did. Those "efficient" bulbs are of a different and more
>> costly design.
>
> Cite?
>
>>
>>>> If the Congressmorons had been willing to just wait for the market,
>>>> old fashioned incandescents would be dying a natural death about now.
>>>
>>> Or LED's wouldn't yet exist.....
>>
>> LEDs existed long before the Congresscritters and their moronic law.
>
> Man, you are bitter, aren't you. Clearly the LED's I referred to are
> those that are currently replacing CFL's and icandescent consumer
> lamps.
And you think they wouldn't have happened regardless?
I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
will be driven down. When the technology is ready, it will be
adopted.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352928 is a reply to message #352882] |
Wed, 20 September 2017 04:55 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
> will be driven down.
No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #352934 is a reply to message #352928] |
Wed, 20 September 2017 06:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 20 Sep 2017 08:55:47 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>> will be driven down.
>
> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
Precisely. Zenith tried to get the government to force HDTV so that
they could sell something they thought the Japanese were too stupid to
make. Surprise!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353064 is a reply to message #352928] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 16:54 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>> will be driven down.
>
> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>
Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
option.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353080 is a reply to message #353064] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 22:09 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>> will be driven down.
>>
>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>
> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
> option.
Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
That gas won't last forever.
Could be decades, but not centuries.
I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
I wonder how that's working out.
I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353088 is a reply to message #353080] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 23:16 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> will be driven down.
>>>
>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>
>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>> option.
>
> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
> That gas won't last forever.
> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>
> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
> I wonder how that's working out.
> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
their own.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353089 is a reply to message #353080] |
Thu, 21 September 2017 23:19 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> will be driven down.
>>>
>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>
>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>> option.
>
> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
> That gas won't last forever.
> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>
> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
> I wonder how that's working out.
> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
Ah, didn't think to comment on the last sentence. Well, no, you won't
see any smog coming off the panels. I have no idea how dirty the
fabrication of the panels is (and considering they've got stuff like
selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353102 is a reply to message #353089] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 08:00 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> > use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> > will be driven down.
>>>>
>>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>
>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>> option.
>>
>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>> That gas won't last forever.
>> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>
>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>> I wonder how that's working out.
>> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>
> Ah, didn't think to comment on the last sentence. Well, no, you won't
> see any smog coming off the panels. I have no idea how dirty the
> fabrication of the panels is (and considering they've got stuff like
> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
>
Yes, but they're made in China, so THAT's their problem.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353108 is a reply to message #353102] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 08:43 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >> will be driven down.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> > whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> option.
>>>
>>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>> That gas won't last forever.
>>> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>
>>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>> I wonder how that's working out.
>>> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>
>> Ah, didn't think to comment on the last sentence. Well, no, you won't
>> see any smog coming off the panels. I have no idea how dirty the
>> fabrication of the panels is (and considering they've got stuff like
>> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
>>
>
> Yes, but they're made in China, so THAT's their problem.
IIRC, something like 20-30% of the panels are actually made
in the USA, the bulk of the remainder in Mexico, China, Japan and Germany.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353116 is a reply to message #353088] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 09:20 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> > use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> > will be driven down.
>>>>
>>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>
>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>> option.
>>
>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>> That gas won't last forever.
>> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>
>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>> I wonder how that's working out.
>> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>
> The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
> little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
> light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
>
> Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
> on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
> their own.
Do they survive hail or wind storms?
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353120 is a reply to message #353116] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 10:32 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >> will be driven down.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> > whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> option.
>>>
>>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>> That gas won't last forever.
>>> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>
>>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>> I wonder how that's working out.
>>> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>
>> The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
>> little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
>> light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
>>
>> Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>> on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
>> their own.
>
> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
we get a good storm...
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353121 is a reply to message #353089] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 10:38 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:19:53 PM UTC-6, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> (and considering they've got stuff like
> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
Laser printers may have selenium in them, although lately they've replaced it by
a synthetic polymer.
Solar cells, like other semiconductor devices, are indeed fabricated using
various nasty chemicals.
But selenium won't be one of them. Selenium was used in "electric eye" sensors,
sometimes made of Cadmium Selenide - Cadmium being another toxic metal - but it
works by changing its resistance when exposed to light. It doesn't generate any
electricity from light, so it's quite useless to try and make a solar cell from.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353124 is a reply to message #353121] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 11:34 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:19:53 PM UTC-6, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> (and considering they've got stuff like
>> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
>
> Laser printers may have selenium in them, although lately they've
> replaced it by
> a synthetic polymer.
>
> Solar cells, like other semiconductor devices, are indeed fabricated using
> various nasty chemicals.
>
> But selenium won't be one of them. Selenium was used in "electric eye" sensors,
> sometimes made of Cadmium Selenide - Cadmium being another toxic metal - but it
> works by changing its resistance when exposed to light. It doesn't generate any
> electricity from light, so it's quite useless to try and make a solar cell from.
Ah, you are correct. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353140 is a reply to message #353108] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 15:41 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >>> will be driven down.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> >> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>> >
>>>> > Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> > costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> > generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> > option.
>>>>
>>>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>>> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>>> That gas won't last forever.
>>>> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>>
>>>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>>> I wonder how that's working out.
>>>> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>>
>>> Ah, didn't think to comment on the last sentence. Well, no, you won't
>>> see any smog coming off the panels. I have no idea how dirty the
>>> fabrication of the panels is (and considering they've got stuff like
>>> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but they're made in China, so THAT's their problem.
>
> IIRC, something like 20-30% of the panels are actually made
> in the USA, the bulk of the remainder in Mexico, China, Japan and Germany.
>
Big Tesla factory now making them here.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353141 is a reply to message #353120] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 15:41 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >>> will be driven down.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> >> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>> >
>>>> > Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> > costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> > generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> > option.
>>>>
>>>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>>> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>>> That gas won't last forever.
>>>> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>>
>>>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>>> I wonder how that's working out.
>>>> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>>
>>> The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
>>> little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
>>> light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
>>>
>>> Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>>> on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
>>> their own.
>>
>> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>
> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
> we get a good storm...
>
I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353155 is a reply to message #353141] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 17:26 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>>>> on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it
>>>> on their own.
>>>
>>> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>>
>> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
>> we get a good storm...
>>
>
> I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
> there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
I would expect any panels installed in areas where hurricanes are
likely to be built to take it at least as well as the roof would and
preferably better.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353160 is a reply to message #353089] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 18:15 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people
>>>> > to use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the
>>>> > cost will be driven down.
>>>>
>>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly
>>>> technology whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>
>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at
>>> relative costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by
>>> other fossil-fuel generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when
>>> it's the cheapest option.
>>
>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time. We are in a
>> boom caused by better drilling. That gas won't last forever. Could
>> be decades, but not centuries.
>>
>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere. I wonder how
>> that's working out. I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>
> Ah, didn't think to comment on the last sentence. Well, no, you won't
> see any smog coming off the panels. I have no idea how dirty the
> fabrication of the panels is (and considering they've got stuff like
> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
Hmm, never heard of anyone poisoned by selenium but I let that one slip
by. How bad is that selenium?:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287842.php
Here are some key points about selenium. More detail is in the main
article.
Selenium is a mineral that plays a role in many bodily functions.
It may protect against cancer, thyroid problems, cognitive decline,
and asthma, but more research is needed.
Brazil nuts, some fish, brown rice, and eggs are good sources.
The best source of nutrients is food. Any supplement use should
first be discussed with a doctor.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353165 is a reply to message #353080] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 21:13 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:09:17 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> will be driven down.
>>>
>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>
>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>> option.
>
> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
And when it is, then it will be time for solar with no need for the
government to try to force people to use it.
> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
> That gas won't last forever.
> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>
> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
> I wonder how that's working out.
> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353167 is a reply to message #353141] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 21:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >>>> will be driven down.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> >>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> >> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> >> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> >> option.
>>>> >
>>>> > Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>>> > We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>>> > That gas won't last forever.
>>>> > Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>> >
>>>> > I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>>> > I wonder how that's working out.
>>>> > I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>>>
>>>> The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
>>>> little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
>>>> light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>>>> on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
>>>> their own.
>>>
>>> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>>
>> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
>> we get a good storm...
>>
>
> I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
> there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
Some hurricanes in the eastern Pacific have been known to curve back
and cross Mexico and hit Arizona and New mewxico with thunderstorms
and rain. Ones that start near Baja California to, I don't know the
name of the long bay between Mexico and Baja California.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353169 is a reply to message #353165] |
Fri, 22 September 2017 21:31 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:09:17 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> > use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> > will be driven down.
>>>>
>>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>
>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>> option.
>>
>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>
> And when it is, then it will be time for solar with no need for the
> government to try to force people to use it.
You had me there, I had no idea what you meant by "forced to use it".
Google says you must be referring to a portion of your taxes being
used to encourage solar.
I'm sure our current government of backward thinking
deplorables will eliminate any semblance of encouragement that
exists now. Then the tiny fraction of your taxes that go to solar
will be used to pay off the deficit. Oh, wait, no
we need more aircraft carriers. Sorry about that. Instead of
clean air, you'll get more weapons systems.
I see stories about solar panels being installed in villages
in Africa, India. They seem to work pretty well there and
I guess they pass the "cheaper than the alternatives" test
since there aren't any.
Encouraging solar seems to me like an investment in a future
we should be prepared for.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353187 is a reply to message #353169] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 00:08 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:31:02 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:09:17 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >> will be driven down.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> > whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> option.
>>>
>>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>
>> And when it is, then it will be time for solar with no need for the
>> government to try to force people to use it.
>
> You had me there, I had no idea what you meant by "forced to use it".
> Google says you must be referring to a portion of your taxes being
> used to encourage solar.
>
> I'm sure our current government of backward thinking
> deplorables will eliminate any semblance of encouragement that
> exists now. Then the tiny fraction of your taxes that go to solar
> will be used to pay off the deficit. Oh, wait, no
> we need more aircraft carriers. Sorry about that. Instead of
> clean air, you'll get more weapons systems.
>
> I see stories about solar panels being installed in villages
> in Africa, India. They seem to work pretty well there and
> I guess they pass the "cheaper than the alternatives" test
> since there aren't any.
>
> Encouraging solar seems to me like an investment in a future
> we should be prepared for.
Encouraging research sure. Encouraging people to overpay for
technology that is going to be obsolete before it's paid off is
another story.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353188 is a reply to message #353160] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 00:20 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:15:26 PM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote:
> Hmm, never heard of anyone poisoned by selenium but I let that one slip
> by. How bad is that selenium?:
> https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287842.php
> Here are some key points about selenium. More detail is in the main
> article.
> Selenium is a mineral that plays a role in many bodily functions.
> It may protect against cancer, thyroid problems, cognitive decline,
> and asthma, but more research is needed.
> Brazil nuts, some fish, brown rice, and eggs are good sources.
> The best source of nutrients is food. Any supplement use should
> first be discussed with a doctor.
People have been poisoned by taking too many iron supplements, so the fact that
small amounts of selenium are essential for the diet doesn't mean it can't be
dangerous.
And, in fact, selenium is fairly dosage critical - one has to be careful even
around selenium supplements, never mind laser printer drums.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353191 is a reply to message #353167] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 00:40 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/22/2017 8:26 PM, JimP. wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> Some hurricanes in the eastern Pacific have been known to curve back
> and cross Mexico and hit Arizona and New mewxico with thunderstorms
> and rain. Ones that start near Baja California to, I don't know the
> name of the long bay between Mexico and Baja California.
>
That "bay" between Baja California and Mexico proper... is known as the
Gulf of California.
If you are interested in other names through history for this body of
water (such as the Sea of Cortez, etc.), see:
http://tinyurl.com/yavmzk73
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353192 is a reply to message #353160] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 00:46 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 9/22/2017 5:15 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people
>>>> >> to use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the
>>>> >> cost will be driven down.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly
>>>> > technology whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at
>>>> relative costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by
>>>> other fossil-fuel generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when
>>>> it's the cheapest option.
>>>
>>> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time. We are in a
>>> boom caused by better drilling. That gas won't last forever. Could
>>> be decades, but not centuries.
>>>
>>> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere. I wonder how
>>> that's working out. I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>
>> Ah, didn't think to comment on the last sentence. Well, no, you won't
>> see any smog coming off the panels. I have no idea how dirty the
>> fabrication of the panels is (and considering they've got stuff like
>> selenium in them, it could be pretty bad).
>
> Hmm, never heard of anyone poisoned by selenium but I let that one slip
> by. How bad is that selenium?:
>
Selenium toxicity can occur with acute or chronic ingestion of excess
selenium. Symptoms of selenium toxicity include nausea; vomiting; nail
discoloration, brittleness, and loss; hair loss; fatigue; irritability;
and foul breath odor (often described as “garlic breath”).
Although selenium is an essential trace element, it is toxic if taken in
excess. Exceeding the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of 400 micrograms per
day can lead to selenosis.[97] This 400 µg Tolerable Upper Intake Level
is based primarily on a 1986 study of five Chinese patients who
exhibited overt signs of selenosis and a follow up study on the same
five people in 1992.[98] The 1992 study actually found the maximum safe
dietary Se intake to be approximately 800 micrograms per day (15
micrograms per kilogram body weight), but suggested 400 micrograms per
day to avoid creating an imbalance of nutrients in the diet and to
accord with data from other countries.[99] In China, people who ingested
corn grown in extremely selenium-rich stony coal (carbonaceous shale)
have suffered from selenium toxicity. This coal was shown to have
selenium content as high as 9.1%, the highest concentration in coal ever
recorded.[100]
Signs and symptoms of selenosis include a garlic odor on the breath,
gastrointestinal disorders, hair loss, sloughing of nails, fatigue,
irritability, and neurological damage. Extreme cases of selenosis can
exhibit cirrhosis of the liver, pulmonary edema, or death.[101]
Elemental selenium and most metallic selenides have relatively low
toxicities because of low bioavailability. By contrast, selenates and
selenites have an oxidant mode of action similar to that of arsenic
trioxide and are very toxic. The chronic toxic dose of selenite for
humans is about 2400 to 3000 micrograms of selenium per day.[102]
Hydrogen selenide is an extremely toxic, corrosive gas.[103] Selenium
also occurs in organic compounds, such as dimethyl selenide,
selenomethionine, selenocysteine and methylselenocysteine, all of which
have high bioavailability and are toxic in large doses.
* Source of last two paragraphs is Wikipedia
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353193 is a reply to message #353167] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 00:54 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >>>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >>>>> will be driven down.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> >>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> >>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> >>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> >>> option.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>>> >> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>>> >> That gas won't last forever.
>>>> >> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>>> >> I wonder how that's working out.
>>>> >> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>>> >
>>>> > The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
>>>> > little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
>>>> > light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>>>> > on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
>>>> > their own.
>>>>
>>>> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>>>
>>> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
>>> we get a good storm...
>>>
>>
>> I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
>> there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
>
> Some hurricanes in the eastern Pacific have been known to curve back
> and cross Mexico and hit Arizona and New mewxico with thunderstorms
> and rain. Ones that start near Baja California to, I don't know the
> name of the long bay between Mexico and Baja California.
By the time they reach New Mexico from either direction they really
aren't anything to worry about. Our real windy season is in the spring,
which isn't hurricane season.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353199 is a reply to message #353155] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 10:35 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> > Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>>>> > on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it
>>>> > on their own.
>>>>
>>>> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>>>
>>> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
>>> we get a good storm...
>>>
>>
>> I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
>> there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
>
> I would expect any panels installed in areas where hurricanes are
> likely to be built to take it at least as well as the roof would and
> preferably better.
>
It depends on how they're fastened together and to the roof.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353213 is a reply to message #353199] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 14:39 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 23 Sep 2017 14:35:14 GMT
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> >> Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting
>>>> >> panels on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been
>>>> >> worth it on their own.
>>>> >
>>>> > Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>>>>
>>>> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens
>>>> when we get a good storm...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
>>> there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
>>
>> I would expect any panels installed in areas where hurricanes are
>> likely to be built to take it at least as well as the roof would and
>> preferably better.
>>
> It depends on how they're fastened together and to the roof.
Sure, my point is that if they're installed *in* hurricane territory
then they should be installed *for* hurricane territory, otherwise somebody
isn't doing their job properly.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353225 is a reply to message #353167] |
Sat, 23 September 2017 17:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 2017-09-20, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> I do not believe that the purpose of government is to force people to
>>>> >>>>> use a more costly technology in the hope that by doing so the cost
>>>> >>>>> will be driven down.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> No, their purpose is to force people to use a more costly technology
>>>> >>>> whose manufacturers have lobbied them hard enough.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Like wind and solar for power generation. Last time I looked at relative
>>>> >>> costs natural gas was by far the cheapest, followed by other fossil-fuel
>>>> >>> generators. I'll believe solar is a good idea when it's the cheapest
>>>> >>> option.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Solar will be cheaper, it's simply a matter of time.
>>>> >> We are in a boom caused by better drilling.
>>>> >> That gas won't last forever.
>>>> >> Could be decades, but not centuries.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I see those solar panels on light poles everywhere.
>>>> >> I wonder how that's working out.
>>>> >> I don't notice any smog coming off the panels.
>>>> >
>>>> > The crossover has already happened for small fixtures like that -- a
>>>> > little solar cell is cheaper than the wire to run electricity to the
>>>> > light (let alone the labor to dig a trench).
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, it took artificial incentives (ie tax credits) for putting panels
>>>> > on our roof to make sense; within a decade they'd have been worth it on
>>>> > their own.
>>>>
>>>> Do they survive hail or wind storms?
>>>
>>> They're supposed to, and they're insured. We'll see what happens when
>>> we get a good storm...
>>>
>>
>> I don't guess you have to worry about hurricanes in New Mexico, but if
>> there is one someplace, it's likely to tear them off.
>
> Some hurricanes in the eastern Pacific have been known to curve back
> and cross Mexico and hit Arizona and New mewxico with thunderstorms
> and rain. Ones that start near Baja California to, I don't know the
> name of the long bay between Mexico and Baja California.
The big monsoon three years or so ago flooded Phoenix.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353261 is a reply to message #352465] |
Sun, 24 September 2017 06:52 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:43:44 +0000, Huge wrote:
> On 2017-09-24, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/23/2017 3:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2017-09-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2017-09-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > [19 lines snipped]
>>>> >
>>>> >> People have been poisoned by taking too many iron supplements, so
>>>> >> the fact that small amounts of selenium are essential for the diet
>>>> >> doesn't mean it can't be dangerous.
>>>> >
>>>> > The dose makes the poison. For everything.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Even water. Or oxygen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But... the *amount* of a substance required for toxicity varies
>>> *widely*!
>>
>> I use boric acid as the active ingredient in an ant bait I put in the
>> kitchen. Works great on ants; has a higher LD50 than table salt on
>> mammals.
>
> I tried this for the first time this summer. It works really well. Mixed
> 1:10 with icing sugar, made a saturated solution in water and put a
> soaked cotton wool ball on the floor on a piece of plastic (*). Three or
> four days of ant feeding frenzy and then ... nothing. As you say, it's
> less toxic to human beings than table salt.
>
> (I tried the dry powder, but they weren't that interested.)
What's the best place to get the boric acid?
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353282 is a reply to message #353261] |
Sun, 24 September 2017 10:45 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:43:44 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2017-09-24, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2017-09-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [19 lines snipped]
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> People have been poisoned by taking too many iron supplements, so
>>>> >>> the fact that small amounts of selenium are essential for the diet
>>>> >>> doesn't mean it can't be dangerous.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The dose makes the poison. For everything.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yup. Even water. Or oxygen.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> But... the *amount* of a substance required for toxicity varies
>>>> *widely*!
>>>
>>> I use boric acid as the active ingredient in an ant bait I put in the
>>> kitchen. Works great on ants; has a higher LD50 than table salt on
>>> mammals.
>>
>> I tried this for the first time this summer. It works really well. Mixed
>> 1:10 with icing sugar, made a saturated solution in water and put a
>> soaked cotton wool ball on the floor on a piece of plastic (*). Three or
>> four days of ant feeding frenzy and then ... nothing. As you say, it's
>> less toxic to human beings than table salt.
>>
>> (I tried the dry powder, but they weren't that interested.)
>
> What's the best place to get the boric acid?
I got mine at the drug store years ago. Lately I've been buying
Terro Liquid Ant Baits. The key is to make the stuff so that they
can carry it back to the nest and feed the queens.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353305 is a reply to message #353261] |
Sun, 24 September 2017 12:30 |
Joe Pfeiffer
Messages: 764
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:43:44 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2017-09-24, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/23/2017 3:46 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> > On 2017-09-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2017-09-23, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [19 lines snipped]
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> People have been poisoned by taking too many iron supplements, so
>>>> >>> the fact that small amounts of selenium are essential for the diet
>>>> >>> doesn't mean it can't be dangerous.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The dose makes the poison. For everything.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yup. Even water. Or oxygen.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> But... the *amount* of a substance required for toxicity varies
>>>> *widely*!
>>>
>>> I use boric acid as the active ingredient in an ant bait I put in the
>>> kitchen. Works great on ants; has a higher LD50 than table salt on
>>> mammals.
>>
>> I tried this for the first time this summer. It works really well. Mixed
>> 1:10 with icing sugar, made a saturated solution in water and put a
>> soaked cotton wool ball on the floor on a piece of plastic (*). Three or
>> four days of ant feeding frenzy and then ... nothing. As you say, it's
>> less toxic to human beings than table salt.
>>
>> (I tried the dry powder, but they weren't that interested.)
>
> What's the best place to get the boric acid?
First, my recipe: one part boric acid, one part confectioner's sugar
(some ants like sweets), two parts peanut butter (some mice like fat,
and it binds it all together).
They sell it at Lowe's under the name "Hot Shot"; I've also gotten it
from Amazon.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353332 is a reply to message #352465] |
Sun, 24 September 2017 16:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:14:49 -0500, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/2017 12:43 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> RCA is another zombie brand. Polaroid was for a while owned by a
>>> gentleman who's now doing a long prison stretch for running a Ponzi
>>> scheme.
>>>
>>
>> Although they did come out, at least for a while, with an "instant" camera
>> that combined a digital camera with a miniature printer.
>>
>
> Well, Tom Petters went to prison about 10 years ago. But while there
> are still "Polaroid" instant cameras, the company still appears to
> mostly or entirely license the trademark. You can buy "Polaroid"
> cellphones, tablets (a friend bought such a bottom-end tablet), TVs (I
> have one), drones, watches, dashcams, even go to "Polaroid
> University", which I do hope is an improvement over other famous names
> that that have been attached to schools (Trump, ITT, etc.).
It's an interesting history. Petters is no longer involved. And
Polaroid film is made in the original factory, possibly by the same
process and to the same standards, but not by the original
company--seems somebody reverse-engineered the technology, put it into
production, and made enough out of it to buy the brand, intellectual
property, and the factory. Whether process documentation came with
the intellectual property I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353345 is a reply to message #353332] |
Sun, 24 September 2017 17:59 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-09-24, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:14:49 -0500, Dave Garland
> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2017 12:43 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> RCA is another zombie brand. Polaroid was for a while owned by a
>>>> gentleman who's now doing a long prison stretch for running a Ponzi
>>>> scheme.
>>>
>>> Although they did come out, at least for a while, with an "instant" camera
>>> that combined a digital camera with a miniature printer.
>>
>> Well, Tom Petters went to prison about 10 years ago. But while there
>> are still "Polaroid" instant cameras, the company still appears to
>> mostly or entirely license the trademark. You can buy "Polaroid"
>> cellphones, tablets (a friend bought such a bottom-end tablet),
>> TVs (I have one), drones, watches, dashcams, even go to "Polaroid
>> University", which I do hope is an improvement over other famous names
>> that that have been attached to schools (Trump, ITT, etc.).
>
> It's an interesting history. Petters is no longer involved. And
> Polaroid film is made in the original factory, possibly by the same
> process and to the same standards, but not by the original
> company--seems somebody reverse-engineered the technology, put it into
> production, and made enough out of it to buy the brand, intellectual
> property, and the factory. Whether process documentation came with
> the intellectual property I have no idea.
Didn't Kodak try going a Polaroid-style camera at one time?
Then there's that new one, the Hemorroid:
It takes piles of shitty pictures.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Fluorescent lamp "starter" unit? [message #353347 is a reply to message #353345] |
Sun, 24 September 2017 19:00 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 24 Sep 2017 21:59:48 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2017-09-24, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:14:49 -0500, Dave Garland
>> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/24/2017 12:43 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > RCA is another zombie brand. Polaroid was for a while owned by a
>>>> > gentleman who's now doing a long prison stretch for running a Ponzi
>>>> > scheme.
>>>>
>>>> Although they did come out, at least for a while, with an "instant" camera
>>>> that combined a digital camera with a miniature printer.
>>>
>>> Well, Tom Petters went to prison about 10 years ago. But while there
>>> are still "Polaroid" instant cameras, the company still appears to
>>> mostly or entirely license the trademark. You can buy "Polaroid"
>>> cellphones, tablets (a friend bought such a bottom-end tablet),
>>> TVs (I have one), drones, watches, dashcams, even go to "Polaroid
>>> University", which I do hope is an improvement over other famous names
>>> that that have been attached to schools (Trump, ITT, etc.).
>>
>> It's an interesting history. Petters is no longer involved. And
>> Polaroid film is made in the original factory, possibly by the same
>> process and to the same standards, but not by the original
>> company--seems somebody reverse-engineered the technology, put it into
>> production, and made enough out of it to buy the brand, intellectual
>> property, and the factory. Whether process documentation came with
>> the intellectual property I have no idea.
>
> Didn't Kodak try going a Polaroid-style camera at one time?
They did. And got hammered by Polaroid's lawyers.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
