Web Enabled Time/Temp/Humidity and I/O Controller

Page 3 of 5  

On Nov 6, 10:41am, snipped-for-privacy@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:

Also the supply chain to make a CFL is huge and deep, involving much mining, manufacturing, chemical refining, and shipping.
An incandescent consisting of 5 low-tech parts is way cheaper to make in terms of total carbon footprint just to get it on a store shelf.
Nobody ever seems to consider that the CFL is already playing catch up with the incandescent next to it on the store shelf in terms of carbon usage, even before anyone has applied current to said bulbs yet. But CFL's do provide more jobs to make all the various parts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RickH" wrote:

I agree that CFL's are more complex than incandescant bulbs. The bit about mining, chemical refining, etc., might be a bit of a stretch. Two things are certain though. CFL's use significantly less power for their output than incandescant lamps. In doing so they reduce demand for energy and that means we burn a little less coal every time we turn one on. That, in turn, means less pollution.
I agree that CFL's are not a perfect answer, but until someone comes up with a suitable, reliable alternative, I'll continue using them.

That's an interesting theory but unless you can provide statistics to back it up, I'll have to consider it just that -- one man's theory. I'm not saying you're wrong yet.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, I count over 35 parts average in the 14 CFL schematics here with some ballasts having 50 parts:
http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html
http://www.kellerstudio.de/repairfaq/sam/cflamp2.pdf
http://www.irf.com/technical-info/designtp/irplcfl1.pdf
http://www.kellerstudio.de/repairfaq/sam/cflamp1.pdf
Along with a fair amount of copper wire coils (mining), mercury (mining) etc.
Factories to make the diodes, capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, inductors, phosphors, non-inert gasses, glass, fuses, etc. and the various sub-components and chemicals inside those parts too. And drastically larger amount of energy consumed for the various parts.
As opposed to 5 or 6 very non-complex elemental-like parts in an incandescent, tungsten, aluminum, brass, glass, inert gasses, and machinery to put it together thats been around for over a hundred years.
The question is can the CFL recover the obviously larger amount of waste it caused just to get it to the shelf, than the path the simple incandescent followed to get there next to it?
If it could then, then I agree its a good thing, but based on the fact that many of my CFL's have not lasted as long as my incandescents I have to wonder. Also does one even bother to add in the cost of a resistor factory (which would be making resistors anyway)? All things manufactured have a deeper cost, I just see the incandescent having a very low manufacturing cost (in terms of environmental impact) than a CFL. If the CFL can recoup that over its life is what I question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I understand what you are saying about the manufacturing process but have to ask one thing.
Do you ride a horse or drive a car?
wrote:

Well, I count over 35 parts average in the 14 CFL schematics here with some ballasts having 50 parts:
http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html
http://www.kellerstudio.de/repairfaq/sam/cflamp2.pdf
http://www.irf.com/technical-info/designtp/irplcfl1.pdf
http://www.kellerstudio.de/repairfaq/sam/cflamp1.pdf
Along with a fair amount of copper wire coils (mining), mercury (mining) etc.
Factories to make the diodes, capacitors, resistors, semiconductors, inductors, phosphors, non-inert gasses, glass, fuses, etc. and the various sub-components and chemicals inside those parts too. And drastically larger amount of energy consumed for the various parts.
As opposed to 5 or 6 very non-complex elemental-like parts in an incandescent, tungsten, aluminum, brass, glass, inert gasses, and machinery to put it together thats been around for over a hundred years.
The question is can the CFL recover the obviously larger amount of waste it caused just to get it to the shelf, than the path the simple incandescent followed to get there next to it?
If it could then, then I agree its a good thing, but based on the fact that many of my CFL's have not lasted as long as my incandescents I have to wonder. Also does one even bother to add in the cost of a resistor factory (which would be making resistors anyway)? All things manufactured have a deeper cost, I just see the incandescent having a very low manufacturing cost (in terms of environmental impact) than a CFL. If the CFL can recoup that over its life is what I question.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RickH" wrote:

By statistics I was not referring to parts count. Do you have actual statistics pertaining to the environmental impact of CFL's vs. incandescant bulbs?

The problem isn't how many parts there are. It's how much energy it consumes. In that regard CFL's are way ahead. Again, they're not perfect and they may not be the long-term choice. But for the time being, CFL's give much more light using much less energy, thus ergo much less coal and therefor, do less harm to the planet.
For me personally it wouldn't be that much of an issue as I don't expect to be around long enough to see the worst consequences of what humans are doing. However, I think we all have a responsibility to do whatever we can to reduce our "footprint".

Even considering what you've mentioned so far, it's not a given that CFL's create that much waste. Further, it's certain that using conventional bulbs causes much harm.

have to wonder.
That is a valid point. I have not tested a lot of makes but the ones I have in place have not given me any problems to date. Only time will tell.

Probably not. Companies that make resistors make othert things as well and would still be present even if CFL's were never introduced.

Ford's Model A cost a lot less to build than a Prius. Care to guess which one is more destructive to the environment (when actually operating)? :^)
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Thus ergo?" One of these days I'll actually proof read before hitting send. :^)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

At first people said ethanol was a net energy saver too. But after a similar analysis (like including the manufacturing chain above in total cost) it is now well-agreed that E85 uses more energy to get that gallon to the pump than the gasoline in the next pump. I say a CFL takes significantly more energy to become a CFL than a light bulb takes to become a light bulb, if you add in the cost of making all the parts required. But political forces keep the E85 refineries going regardless of E85 net carbon unfavorability. But politics trumps a deeper analysis of any so-called energy saving device once the device has been sold as a savior. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, those resistors, capacitors, transistors and diodes still take enrgy to make. But denial is a big part of both sides in the green movement. All those parts didn't simply get there by magic, it could easily take more energy to make just one electrolytic capacitor than an incan. bulb considering the chemical electrolyte production, foil production, plastic production, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:32:05 -0800 (PST), RickH

And war trumps politics (von Clausewitz's dictum notwithstanding). The reason is that E85 is an attractive energy source in the US is that it incrementally reduces dependence on imported oil and can supply energy for transportation -- look at example of Brazil which became 'energy independent' ca 2006. Have we already forgotten the > 10K lives and ~ $Trillion expenditures for the war in Iraq?
Pop quiz:
    1) How many resistors and capacitors is a human life worth?     2) Who's doing the denying here?
( I dunno what all the right answers are, but do know that many of us can recognize some of the wrong answers right quick.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There's another approach (other than E85) to carbon-efficient private transportation. See www.evalbum.com/1610
Our all-electric 1967 VW beetle is part and parcel of our home automation and distributed DC power system - The car provides ~ 1.6 kWh storage to the home when fully charged and plugged in. And, of course, could be recharged using renewable and(or) non-renewable energy resources.
And yes, it will have one of the CAi Networks WebControl devices that is the subject of this thread.
HTH ... Marc Marc_F_Hult www.ECOntrol.org
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.com> wrote in message

I'm in the middle of corn country (IL) and there is only one independent gas station (Gas City) that actually has E85 pumps available. Additionally the price of the E85 there varies widely and is not much better than regular, (unless regular goes back over $4), the E85 will be $3.50, right now its only a dime cheaper than regular and ouputs less power when burned. If E85 is inconvenient to get in IL corn country then I can only imagine how hard it would be to find an E85 pump in another state with no political skin in the game. Brazil is on the equator and can utilize sugar cane, both those aspects tip the energy-to-produce scale in favor of E85, but we are not allowed to import Brazillian E85 (as much as the Brazillians would like to sell it to us). If E85 was really attractive in US then it wouldn't need govt subsidies, it wouldn't raise the price of food and feed corn, and every company would be jumping on it to make a profit. The fact is it's not an attractive fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"RickH" wrote:

Ethanol may not be a net energy saver but it does reduce dependance on middle eastern oil. That, IMO, is a good thing.
I spend a lot of time in Brazil, where my car and my motorcycle run on a mix of gasoline and alcohol (made from cheap sugar cane; not overpriced corn sugar). The cost is less than straight gasoline and milage is not significantly different. The Brazilian government-owned oil comany, Petrobras, claims that production costs -- both financial and environmental -- of ethanol are very close to those for gasoline.
Brazil does not spend one real (pronounced "hey, Al") on Iranian oil. This is also, IMO, a good thing.

That's a bit of a stretch, friend.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ethanol may be a good idea, but not as the US has pursued it. Sugar cane is a good choice; corn is a lousy choice. Remember the fertilizer comes from middle eastern oil... it takes a lot of effort to show a net benefit on that one.
Algae is looking *very* promising, as a better US approach.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote:

We got a lot of fertilizer out of the previous administration as well. :^)
The problem with ethanol is the US sugar industry. More specifically, the complex relationship between agribusiness and the US government makes progress almost impossible.
There is a false premise that many in Congress claim we are supporting "free market" enterprise. In a truly free market we would be importing Brazilian sugar by the boatload. That would bring the cost down at the pump *and* reduce our dependence on middle-eastern oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why not just lower the world barrel price of petroleum instead of trying to avoid the high prices the middle east charges?
Me thinks the price is set by many Americans in the quest for richness. Why blame somebody else?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Without Provocation, "Dave Houston" spat the following trash on the floor:

I never said anything about PC standby power. I have disagreed with you on several issues and that has caused you to attack me personally on various occasions like this one. Once when you complained on your website about health-related financial issues I even tried to offer you help. Your response was to attack me publicly and accuse me of trying to steal whatever it was you were working on. You're a real case, Houston.
Mr. Hult has repeatedly shown you to be wrong on numerous issues. Your response is the same -- attack personally because you haven't the ability to win a debate on the merits.

All of that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. The issue being considered was web enabled temperature and humidity monitoring. This has since morphed into a discussion on booting a PC via the Internet or a LAN.

According to Mr. Houston, any attempt at reducing electrical usage is a "fool's errand" unless it's controlled by X10 (private joke).
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:10:29 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

One gotcha I found with one of my home systems is that WOL doesn't work if the power's been off (power cut, breaker, 'hard' switch on the back of the PSU etc.) - the first time after a total power-off I need to hit the switch on the front of the machine; it won't respond to WOL events. Once it's been on via the front switch once, shutdown-WOL cycles work normally.
I'm not sure if that's a widespread problem (or even a goofy intentional 'feature'), or if I've just got crap firmware :-)
cheers
Jules
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@remove.this.gmail.com (Jules) writes:
| One gotcha I found with one of my home systems is that WOL doesn't work if | the power's been off (power cut, breaker, 'hard' switch on the back of the | PSU etc.) - the first time after a total power-off I need to hit the | switch on the front of the machine; it won't respond to WOL events. Once | it's been on via the front switch once, shutdown-WOL cycles work normally. | | I'm not sure if that's a widespread problem (or even a goofy intentional | 'feature'), or if I've just got crap firmware :-)
I've noticed that the BIOS options available to control behavior after a full power loss vary widely. On some systems there are no choices at all. Others allow you to select on, off, or even previous state. Some systems that don't appear to have useful options in this area _do_ have clock-based power-on so you can sort of get a similar effect if you want the machine back up eventually. I wonder where the options and state are stored. If the are in the CMOS is that accessible from sleep mode or do they have to power up to determine whether or not to power up?
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Yes, so true, and so responsible for so many blown motherboards and add in cards. I used to participate in a PC user group helpline and I recall a lot of calls from people who thought the machine was off when they hit the switch, yanked the cover, popped in a card or fiddle with a drive and then it woke up and burned up.
When I bought a 10K RPM WD Raptor drive and a dual head video card, the case stayed terribly hot after shutdown, with the sensors showing that the chip temps spiked once the main fans stopped. Fortunately, the low voltage that's always available on an ATX system allowed me to use 5VDC timed fans to keep extracting hot air from the system after it was powered down.
I only ever *popped* a PCI video card that wasn't much good, but developed the rule that when the cover's off, the cord is pulled out of the back. Like Cpl. Dwayne Hicks said in "Aliens" about dropping a nuke from orbit, "It's the only way to be sure!" Before that, I had put some case screws on the shelf that hung over the open PC, listened to some loud rock and roll and the damn screw danced into the machine and killed a tape backup card
As for WOL and other methods of waking the motherboard up, some machines, cards, OS's and BIOS's are definitely better than others. The newer the machine, I've found, the more likely it is to actual work.
Still waiting for my temp and humidity sensors to arrive before I start playing around with my WebControl board. Assembling as much info on CGI and micro-web servers as I can while I wait.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do you want your PC completely off?
Best, Christopher
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess its not an issue considering it seems everything else you plug in these days is also "in standby".
If the greenies were serious then they'd regulate back that little thing called an on/off switch that actually was wired in series with said device line cord.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:37:57 -0800, RickH wrote:

The only thing I've thought of before is it might be useful to be able to remotely unplug a device to protect against lightning - but I'm not sure that any relay-based setup is going to really give adequate protection there, anyway... (and there are still other paths, such as the network, to worry about)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.