Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote: | | |> |> But only recently the CPU speed increases have slowed down quite a bit and |> the advances are more in the form of more cores. The point being that the |> software doesn't take good advantage of more cores. That will change, but |> for a while not everything will. |> | | | More cores sure do help when running multiple simultaneous programs, | which is far more prevalent than it was a few years back. Also load has | shifted to coprocessors like the powerful GPUs on modern graphics cards. | I'm not seeing any slowdown in the technological advancement. Processors | are still getting faster, hard drive capacity is growing faster than | ever, a $1,000 PC today provides performance far superior to high end | workstations of 5-10 years ago. As for the increases in performance | slowing down, I'll believe it when I see it.

You're not seeing the speed-UP that would have otherwise taken place had there been no limitation on making single CPUs faster and faster at the same rate they have been increased in the past. Processor speeds increments are slowing down around the 3 GHz point. There are faster ones, but the cost spread AND the heat spread are increasing. We should have been at 6 to 8 GHz CPU speed by now, otherwise.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam
Loading thread data ...

| As for CFLs being made in China, so what? New sources of American Energy are | nukes (blocked by environmentalists) wind energy (blocked by | environmentalists) solar energy (blocked by environmentalists) and | coal-based energy (blocked by environmentalists).

Yes, there are environmentalists blocking nuclear power plants. I happen to be one of the environmentalists that is NOT blocking them. Instead, what I am "blocking" is stupidity by corporate executives and managers. Nuclear power _can_ be safe. But in the hands of corporations that will cut costs by reducing safety, then nuclear power _can_ be very unsafe. Letting the government run them would be no better and probably worse. What we need is a set of strong regulations and regular inspections with public reports.

| America needs 30 new power plants to up the capacity and replace aging | plants. Europe has been using nuke energy for a long time, and they have no | problems with it. But enviromentalists in this country object to it. America | has a few windmill farms, but environmentalists object to them because birds | fly into the vanes, and the NIMBYs object to the view. Solar energy is being | tried in a few places, but the environmentalists object to the space they | demand and the resulting encroachment on habitat. And, we have lots of coal | fired power plants, but environmentalists object to the coal mines and the | soot that is produced.

Europe also runs things differently. They have stronger regulations and actually do inspections by people that have a genuine concern for safety.

We'll never eliminate all environmentalist objections. Europe hasn't, either. But we can find people who do have genuine environmental concerns and do also recognize the need for more power. We need these kinds of people to oversee the whole thing. These people will be neither left-wing nor right-wing on the political spectrum.

| The American Southwest looks like it will be building new homes within the | next decade that are Zero Net users of electricity. These homes will be | built with solar collectors on the roof that will be able to generate | upwards of 10kW, and this will be more than the home needs for most of the | year. Each home will actually generate power that goes to the grid and the | home will get credit on the electricity bill. The credit will then be drawn | against on days when the air conditioner is used, resulting in an overall | zero pull from the grid for most homeowners. I'm sure the environmentalists | will figure out a complaint to lodge ...

There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with something.

By having some "sensible environmentalists" who don't do such silliness, things like this, and building nuclear plants, and solar farms, and wind farms and such, can all be accomplished. Part of the problem, though, is that the way the environment is dealt with by so many corporations (basically shunning all environmentalists as a whole) ends up putting all environmentalists on the same side together. Instead, what we need, is a certainly level of cooperation to meet in the middle. Then the environmentalists that remain to object (who probably object to everything) will be fewer in number.

As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ... and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ... desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms.

My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at the rate we are growing in our use).

To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas, then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even criminal governments who are the current suppliers.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture rather than brute speed. Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at which data is supplied to it.

Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.

In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32 bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs Microsoft has produced.)

With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".

Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.

Reply to
VWWall

We don't punish motivations. Likewise, the law DOES punish those who, with the best of intentions, have a "negative impact" on society. It is the result of the motivation that counts.

Consider Albert Sabin as he hovered over the microscope looking for a polio vaccine. The many thoughts running through his mind probably included many emotions that people reject: GREED ("If I can whip this, I can do the kind of research I want!), PRIDE ("People will shake my hand and say nice things about me"), ENVY ("And I'm tired of Jonas Salk getting all the praise"), and a whole lot more.

The result, of course, of these despicable emotions was that polio has been eradicated in my lifetime.

Right. The point being that "greed" is not the issue nor should it be punished.

Reply to
HeyBub

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |>>

|>> Right. Greed is good. |>

|> Greed is good only to the extent it motivates people to act within |> the law. The law is good when it ensures that greed has no negative |> impact on the society as a whole. | | We don't punish motivations. Likewise, the law DOES punish those who, with | the best of intentions, have a "negative impact" on society. It is the | result of the motivation that counts.

Those with good intentions should only make good (make whole) for their errors. If they intended to profit from good intentions, and failed to do so, then they have learned their own lessons. They will act smarter the next time.

Those with bad intentions should also pay more. If not, they may well try again to see what they can get away with. That payment can vary from extra payment beyond making whole, to jail time, depending.

Note, that I do include as bad intentions things like advertising untruths, and mistakes that could have been avoided were it not for cost cutting.

| Consider Albert Sabin as he hovered over the microscope looking for a polio | vaccine. The many thoughts running through his mind probably included many | emotions that people reject: GREED ("If I can whip this, I can do the kind | of research I want!), PRIDE ("People will shake my hand and say nice things | about me"), ENVY ("And I'm tired of Jonas Salk getting all the praise"), and | a whole lot more. | | The result, of course, of these despicable emotions was that polio has been | eradicated in my lifetime.

All these things led in the right direction in his case. It is a case of greed (or pride or envy) leading to something that benefits everyone (or at least doesn't impact anyone).

Something I learned about in business many years ago was the difference between "creating value" and "diverting value". Creating value is when you create something that benefits at least someone while not harming anyone. Profiting from it is quite reasonable. Diverting value is when you profit in some way that takes away from someone. There is a wide scope of this and not all are obvious. This can include price gouging, false advertising, anti-competetive actitivties, etc.

|>> A great worthy once said "If not for greed, no man would marry, |>> build a house, or father a child." |>

|> Lots of non-greedy people accomplish these things. |>

| | Right. The point being that "greed" is not the issue nor should it be | punished.

A"greed" :-) Greed is orthogonal. It can be good or bad depending on how it is applied or used. Misapplication should be punished.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on | thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit | elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture | rather than brute speed. Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are | good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at | which data is supplied to it.

Many of these factors are why CPU speed is not increasing as fast as it used to. We are at a point where speed is an inverse function of size. So every speed improvement in a CPU now has to have a corresponding size decrease. That's harder than speed improvements in the past used to be.

| Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly | addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and | cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of | a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.

My 32-bit Linux system has no trouble accessing the 8GB of RAM it has. Your use of "directly" could mean that each actual running program would have its own such access, and there would be a 4GB limit in that case.

| In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32 | bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs | Microsoft has produced.)

But you have to add a 64-bit layer. My 32-bit Linux gives me the advantages of 8GB of RAM (and I've only populated 4 of the 8 slots, so I could put in another 8GB, knowing that Linux can handle up to 64GB this way). Microsoft chose not to go this way with Windows (XP or Vista). Of course, 64-bit is the way of the future and I'll be doing some 64-bit stuff soon.

| With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the | BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the | one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".

There is a "sand castle" of features added on that make the whole architecture a big mess. I'm referring to the history of things from P&P to ACPI. None of these were truly clean (but clean would have meant a too disruptive change).

| Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better | input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.

Agreed. The applications will get better. We just don't have them all doing that right now. Some do, some don't. And some of the tools meant to help have some issues (for example POSIX threads did not provide a means to let threads keep separate current directory contexts ... Linux can do it, but if used, the pthreads library will fail). I'm looking at building my own thread library right now to handle some of the limitations the current models have.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Possibly in the x86 arena, but this idea originated elsewhere; Sun UltraSPARC IV predated it, and the earlier work of Afara Websystems which eventually led to Sun's original 8-core Niagra SPARC chip.

32 bit OS's have been accessing over 4GB memory for well over a decade. Even PC's, which were probably the last hardware platform to do so, introduced Intel's PAE with the Pentium Pro (1995?).

Databases and other applications accessing over 4Gb of data are not exactly rare.

OK, 64 bit Windows might be of limited use, but don't tarnish all OS's with such a claim. The x86/PC architecture allows 32 bit and

64 bit applications to run together on the same OS (OS permitting).

I don't think any PC OS's still use the BIOS once booted for at least a decade, and in some cases nearer 2 decades.

and better OS's (in multiple respects).

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

I was referring to CPUs in common use in PCs. There have been a lot of special purpose CPUs, none of which has a large following. I recall one that didn't even have an increment instruction. Instead of x++ you used x=x+1! They claimed the addition instruction was faster.

By "directly" I meant having a register capable of holding the address of >4GB memory. There have been "segmented" memory programs since Bill Gates said 940KB was plenty for anyone.

PhotoShop in the last few releases, can, with a 64bit OS, use memory instead of writing to disk.

This is written using 32bit Linux, (PCLOS), on a 64bit AMD CPU. The same box multi-boots WinXP x64 as well as a couple of 64bit Linux distros, openSUSE 11.0 being the latest. Actually, Win XP x64 runs most of my applications better than the 32bit version. The few 64bit drivers available are an improvement.

I've been running Linux with kernels capable of >4GB memory use for some time. The lack of 64bit drivers in addition to applications, limits its usefulness. I had great hopes for Vists 64bit, but it looks like it's not doing much to encourage 64bit development.

Many of the less expensive motherboards cannot handle >8GB 0f memory. I have seen a couple, that had the slots, but slowed memory access when fully populated.

They've added LBA 48, ext 13, APCI. My old DOS debug still runs on it!

Someone once said the reason God could create the universe in six days was because it didn't have to be backward compatible! :-)

Reply to
VWWall

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about

700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it. Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it, might not be such a bad idea...

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable - except for plants who would say "Yum!"

It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of terror.

Reply to
HeyBub

In article , HeyBub wrote in part:

Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight.

Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water vapor).

How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more than CO2 content in the atmosphere.

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

In article , snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | | >In article , snipped-for-privacy@trashmail.net (James Sweet) writes: | >| | >| | >| > In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes | >| > at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume | >| > they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption | >| > from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?) | >| > | >| > Dan Lanciani | >| > ddl@danlan.*com | >| | >| | >| Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot | >| cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps. | >

| >And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW | >versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering | >index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy | >conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40 | >and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W | >versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast | >replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty | >much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)? | >

| > Dan Lanciani | > ddl@danlan.*com | | | Hi Dan, | | Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture | would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy | saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or | 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.

I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :( Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the

60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white tubes?

| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO | (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a | standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens | from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) | at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic | ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.

Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes?

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

Hi Dan,

If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total.

You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps. However, if you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes; the benefits are:

  • 40% energy savings (110-watts versus 180-watts) * 50% longer lamp life (18,000 hours versus 12,000 hours) * cooler operation (potentially helpful in warmer climates) * silent operation (no annoying ballast hum) * no flicker (important if you work with some types of machinery) * typically better colour rendering (improved light quality) * better lumen maintenance (more light over the life of the tube) * typically better cold weather performance (starting down to 0F) * better long-term availability of replacement lamps (???)

A 75-watt F96T12 + standard magnetic ballast is the technical equivalent of a 1978 Ford Granada. It may have been considered a good performer in its day (** snicker **), but thirty years later we've thankfully moved the goal posts a little further.

Cheers, Paul

Reply to
Paul M. Eldridge

That was 640 kB.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can be done.

Reply to
ransley

Ah, right. Thanks for the correction.

36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2 levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and invented pop-top beer containers.

In my view, the progress was worth it. Others may differ.

Reply to
HeyBub

For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead:

formatting link
Cheers, Paul

Reply to
Paul M. Eldridge

Paul M. Eldridge wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

why not NUCLEAR power plants? They are clean,safe,and practical. We'll need them anyways for plug-in electric autos. Good high paying jobs,too. GOOD for the economy.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Why not Geothermal? Available everywhere and free after you drill a few holes. Used in many places around the world and a recent study says New York could benefit greatly.

Reply to
Chuck

| For all the panty-waists out there who whine about CFLs containing | mercury and, in particular, those who oppose the use of energy saving | lamps and advocate the construction of more coal-fired plants instead: | |

formatting link
What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason?

Will they come out and do a full EPA-grade cleanup if a CFL (or FL) breaks?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

What I read somewhere is if it breaks and gets on your rug you're supposed to cut out the section of rug.. Jeez. I used to play with mercury when I was a kid, rolled it around in my hand, etc. Now they close a school if a thermometer breaks (they really did this at a Delaware school..) And yet there are near NO cases of mercury poisoning reported in a year.. Eric

Reply to
Eric

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.