yes I know we build and untrasonic alarm for it too. First time I'd used Nitromors stripper nice or nasty stuff depending on whe re it lands.
And who would you take notice of regarding kettles and household appliances becomeing aprt of IoT how about cars, do you think a remote that could tel l you how much fuel you had left as well as turning off/on the alarm might be useful, tyre pressure and everything else a cars dashboard can be used for. Or do you think dedicated remotes costing £120+ each are the way to go ?
In a few years you'll find it hard to find a new car that isn't ioT
That's your problem not mine so remind me how replacing a traic works......
*You* built an alarm for it? This from one who hasn't the skills to replace a triac in a dimmer so buys new? I'd not dream of building a car alarm. I couldn't make one for anywhere near the cost of buying one - and it wouldn't be as good either.
Users of those who aren't stupid, I'd say.
Complete waste of time. Apart from the central locking and alarm. But then since you don't drive you probably no most cars already have a fuel gauge. Of course if you're a goldfish, you may need a mobile to tell you you need fuel.
But you've said you don't know how to. So no point.
Yes, I'm NOT as stupid as you when it comes to replacing traics.
This one was in ETI around 1982/3 We made a PCB for it too. It wasn't brillant because a cat kept setting it off as it slept on the soft top, largeb swings in temprature caused problems too.
You donlt seem to be able to tell the differnce.
heard it all before.
So there;s no point in tracking a car to see whwre it is and how it is being driven. Next you'll be telling me there's no point in having cab cams and dashboard cams.
well I;ve never run out of fuel but people do, just like some peole need an automatic car or prefer one.
I have done it, and it doesn't matter how many times I tell you you ignore that fact.
Of course uo could explian how and why you'd replace a traic but you've no idea have you.
On the few pages I read there are some more pitfalls for the unwary - how to weld the contacts of a miniature push switch together by directly shorting out a charged 1000uF capacitor.
If you have found so many problems with the publication that you have to write your own corrections or advise against the foolhardy suggestions why buy 60 copies as a student reference book and why recommend it to this group?
I was rather suspicious of that specific usage pattern offered by WD since it rather looked like the 2.7 hours a day caveat in regard of the 6 year guarantee period on a 30W 6000 hour rated CFL which, by my best guess, actually expired with no warning symptoms at what I suspect was the actual 6000 hour limit designed into the lamp to avoid extended life at low efficacy (less economic lumens production rate) by forcing the end user to do the right thing and replace it with another lamp rather than hang on until the spiral tube was completely buggered after a few more years of wasting electricity at an ever reducing efficacy as was typically the case for the old traditionally ballasted fluorescent tube luminaries used domestically. A legitimate EoL mechanism to help their customers operate the lamp to its full economic lifetime without having to count the hours of use for themselves.
What put me off mentioning it was that the 50000 hours at 4 hours per day equated to some 34 years of guaranteed operation and, even assuming a more likely figure of 25000 hours this still equated to a 17 year guarantee! The "Hours per day" figure is normally a caveat in regard of the warranty period expressed in years.
As you noted, limiting the continuous run time per day to four hours would barely reduce the average temperature of operation since thermal equilibrium would likely be achieved within the first hour of operation.
If the lamp had a 10 year warranty, I'd have expected the caveat to have been expressed as 7 hours a day for a 25000 hour rated lamp and 14 hours a day for a 50000 hour rated lamp. The 4 hours a day seems a rather specious figure since it relates to no realistic warranty periods measured in years alone (ISTR seeing some Eveready LED lamps offering a
10 year warranty which I thought was rather optimistic considering it would likely be completely obsoleted long before then).
There are only 52596 hours in a 6 year warranty period meaning such a warranty on a 50000 hour rated lamp would allow for 22.8 hours a day operation anyway and 13.7 hours a day for a 30000 hour lamp or 11.4 hours a day in the case of the 25000 hour rated lamp. That 4 hours a day seems so spurious, one has to wonder why it was ever quoted in the first place.
Eveready are offering 10 year warranties on some of their LED lamps but even this seems excessive considering the lamp is likely to be obsoleted by new improved LED lamps offering two to three times the efficiency within the next 5 years or so [1].
I think most of us would be quite happy with the more realistic 3 to 6 year warranties typically being offered by the more upmarket and long established manufacturers (especially at this stage of LED lamp development - Cree announced a laboratory achievement of 303Lm/W (3 times the current best efficiency today) just over 2 1/2 years ago which they thought could be commercialised within the next 18 to 24 months - the deadline on that promise has well and truly slipped).
The major benefit of a 270Lm/W lamp over today's 90Lm/W lamps is less to do with reduced electricity consumption and more to do with making them an even better substitute for the traditional tungsten filament GLS lamp. Your 2430Lm 9W LED lamp would produce noticeably less waste heat than today's 9W 810Lm lamp and therefore deployable in luminaries otherwise too marginal on ventilation to allow a 9W 810 lumens lamp to used due to overheating issues.
[1] Possibly I'm being unduly optimistic about a mere 5 year time scale for those 270+ Lm/W lamps that had been promised to be on the shop shelves some 6 months ago. It now looks for all the world as if Cree and Co have realised their marketing blunder resulting in losing the "Disposable Razor blade model" of a guaranteed steady income revenue and are now resolutely dragging their heels in fulfilling that promise. :-(
But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their record breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently only one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail stores. :-(
That's in part due to the fact that the 807Lm 60W tungsten filament reference lamp is based on the higher efficacy American 120v 750 hour lamp rather than the lower temperature 1000 hour rated 240v filament lamps we use in the UK. When they state that 60W equivalency on an 810Lm LED lamp it's more like that of a 75W 240v 1000 hour lamp. :-)
It's unusual for anyone to complain about a LED lamp being too bright (unless it's entirely absent some form of diffuser to soften the glare of naked LEDs). Aside from the diffuser issue, most people regard more light output from their lamps as "A Good Thing" in that "You can't have too much of a good thing.".
Besides, if the 270Lm/W LEDs *do* finally make an appearance in the marketplace, one always has the option of a cheaper lower power lamp which, by virtue of its considerably reduced heat dissipation, is very likely to realise its full 50000 hour rated lifetime.
That's one of the benefits of modern 6000 hour rated CFLs, the 6000 hour suicide timer to force you to do what you probably ought to have done with those early CFLs some three decades ago. :-)
I still have some of the first CFLs I bought, not quite so old (are the
35 y/o ones the philips "jam jar" type?) mine are just under 30 I should think, they were expensive enough that I didn't leave them behind in my previous house, they are now relegated to lighting the loft, so only a few hours per year.
My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or supermarket - an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an affordable price.
1) Same quality of light. That is important to me - some may not care.
2) The actual lamp - if it can be seen - must be attractive too.
3) Dimmable - with a dimmer that will also work for tungsten.
4) The efficiency is the least important bit to me. I don't leave lights on all over the house. But obviously lower running costs are good. But must take the cost of the lamp and actual life into account too.
Depending on the circumstance there may be far less desire on the part of consumers. The tenfold reduction in running costs moving from 60 to
6W say is worth having in financial terms. Saving another couple of watt may be less motivation especially when the purchase price of the lamp is likely to be noticeably higher.
True, although how aware joe consumer is of these issues is another matter.
There is also a danger of calling into play the (rather unfairly titled) Osbourn Effect - cutting off current revenues as people delay purchase waiting for the better model etc.
It's not my decision it's the decision of teaching staff just like any other text book the university recomends for teaching that the bookshop sells. If they asked my opion which I give on many sub jects they ignore it just like they do with H&S if they can get away with it.
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.