Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULLSHIT, you fucking idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

On 10 Apr 2008 22:48:41 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On 10 Apr 2008 08:18:32 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

I put it right there in front of you: They measure ELECTRIC POTENTIAL
otherwise known as "VOLTAGE", between a filling and a reference point.

TOATAL BULLSHIT, you fucking idiot!

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy,
who obviously can not live up to the name he is using.
Instead of discussing the matter respectfully, and
abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

If anything, I admit that discussing this topic in
a group related to electronics is highly inappropriate,
and I feel *very* embarrassed that I unwittingly led the
discussion in this direction. I hope to wind this
down soon.

I've posted enough links to Wikipedia that anyone who has
interest can just go read them, and learn much more than I
have to offer on my own. And don't knock my little story
without checking out the reader's comments to Dr. Huggins'
book on Amazon.com if you haven't already. If those things
don't do it for you, I don't think anything will ... and
that's perfectly ok with me! Enjoy your own reality however
you prefer it.

---
Read this:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

JF

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.
Jay Ts

On 11 Apr 2008 00:53:54 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.

Jay Ts


Except for the fact that the person that wrote that horseshit is the
troll.

All I did was call you stupid.

The truth hurts, eh?

In article <3l5uv3111nc09q8vv5a4kv67cj8a65r2mq@4ax.com>,
mimsy@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org says...
On 11 Apr 2008 00:53:54 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.

Jay Ts


Except for the fact that the person that wrote that horseshit is the
troll.

Is THAT why you wear a different pair of you mommy's stockings every
day?

All I did was call you stupid.

...and you live with stupid!

The truth hurts, eh?

You couldn't stand the truth, Dimbulb.

place than the living hell they came from. Eventually, space travel
will be mundane enough for the carpetbaggers, bureaucrats,
politicians, hookers, pimps, salesmen, and the rest of the trash that
constitutes civilization.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:21:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

place than the living hell they came from. Eventually, space travel
will be mundane enough for the carpetbaggers, bureaucrats,
politicians, hookers, pimps, salesmen, and the rest of the trash that
constitutes civilization.

What is it you don't like about hookers? Too much like true Free Market
Capitalism?

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:57:50 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <3l5uv3111nc09q8vv5a4kv67cj8a65r2mq@4ax.com>,
mimsy@TheOtherSideoftheLookingGlass.org says...
On 11 Apr 2008 00:53:54 GMT, Jay Ts <UseWebsiteToReply@example.com
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jay Ts wrote:

I've already done as much as I can to help this guy, who obviously can
not live up to the name he is using. Instead of discussing the matter
respectfully, and abiding by Usenet "netiquette", he is just attacking
me personally.

Haven't you figured out that you are playing with the resident SED
troll?

Sorry, I'm new here. But yes, it's quite obvious
at this point.

Jay Ts


Except for the fact that the person that wrote that horseshit is the
troll.

Is THAT why you wear a different pair of you mommy's stockings every
day?

You're an idiot. You're a goddamned idiot.

All I did was call you stupid.

...and you live with stupid!

You're a goddamned idiot.

The truth hurts, eh?

You couldn't stand the truth, Dimbulb.

You wouldn't know... You do not know what the truth is.

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable, and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
... :-)

Arfa

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:22:41 GMT, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06b004htd49j569u0ttk8sin5p39dc2llv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:45:28 +1200, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:

Jay Ts wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:


these are great, they look fantastic, unity power factor, dimmable,
and
last 50,000 hours.

Yeah, and they're only $145 each:

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/s_lr6/


And only 650 lumens, which is less than a 60 watt incandescent (890
lumens). I'm using 4 27 watt (100 watt equivalent) 6500K CFLs to
light my work room, so to replace them with those LED bulbs, it
would cost ... oh, forget it, I don't even want to do the math!
No way.

and how many lumens come out of your fixture with the 890 lumen lamp in
it?

CFLs are terrible for that. they are measured in the light sphere sans
fixture, which can make a tremendous difference. easily 20-30%.


Oh, and the LR6 bulbs are spotlights, which is a no-go just by itself.
And they aren't daylight balanced (5500-6500K), another definite
no-go.


they are not bulbs. They are light fittings with integral lamps. that
alters the C-B calcs substantially.

I think it's still going to be a while until 100-watt equivalent,
daylight balanced LED bulbs are available with an "ouchless"
startup cost, and I'm not holding my breath waiting. Just hoping
that it will happen, and won't be awfully long.

Jay Ts

its a total cost of ownership thing. efficiency wise they pay for
themselves (I have seen the ROI calcs but cant recall them) in a few
years.

the main market is for people who dont change their own lightbulbs (eg
companies) where it costs a lot to get a single lamp changed, so they
often get a sparky to change all lamps whether or not they need it, eg
annually or bi-annually. And if its in say a tall atrium and you need
scissor lifts, these things pay themselves off in less than the
lifgetime of a single incandescent, CFL or flouro.

Cheers
Terry

For street lighting, warehouse lighting, and industrial lighting there
is a competing technology: Induction lighting. Typical lamp/bulb life
50,000 to 75,000 hours. Twice the life and better luminous efficacy
at a 50% surcharge compared to HID lighting. It is starting to get a
lot of notice. Oh, and better electrical efficiency, takes about half
the power for the same amount of light.

I don't know how much take-up of this technology there has been in the UK.
It does beg the question of how much trouble it could cause, if a single
streetlamp or warehouse luminaire went 'rogue'. Already, I see fellow hams
bleating all the time about HF bands interference problems from rogue
CFLs,
and SMPS's and PLT and so on. Imagine the potential for interference if a
high power streetlight ballast, feeding an induction lamp 50ft up a pole,
started radiating on 13 odd megs. Or a factory one 50ft up in the ceiling
... :-)

Arfa


In the US they have to meet FCC radiated and conducted emission
standards. Thus the CFLs going rouge probably only statistically meet
those standards, such is part of the nature of regulation.

more printed followup
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/17/1
# The Guardian,
# Thursday April 17 2008
Tin woes solder on

Congratulations on the very interesting article on tin whiskers (Within a
whisker of failure, April 3). You may be interested to hear of another
phenomenon associated with lead-free solders in electronics, known as tin
pest. Research was carried out into the allotropy of tin 80 years ago. Tin
pest was found to occur by a process of nucleation and growth of "grey"
tin
(a form found below 13C), and was very slow - often requiring years to
complete. Since the transition from "white" to "grey" tin involved a 27%
increase in volume, its formation was restricted to the surface. Recently,
tin pest has been reported in bulk samples of lead-free solder alloys
following a few years' exposure at -18C, the usual freezer temperature.

To date it has not been observed on actual joints. But lead-free
interconnections have been in service for a relatively short time.
Although
we do not know whether it is necessary to shut the stable door, we should
make more effort to understand and control tin pest formation. Only time
will tell whether it represents a real problem in electronics.
Professor Bill Plumbridge
Faculty of Technology
The Open University



--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

In article <1pc7sp.r8v.17.2@news.alt.net>,
Meat Plow <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:48:04 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

Game over

Keep this shit out of SER.

It's a complement to be called a nutter by the Allison chappie as he
obviously considers he's the only sane person in the world...