Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
There was another parallel between the pyramid scam and global warming.: I am with "minority group of uncool twats who are obviously wrong". And I am selling boring complicated pragmarism against a an exciting dream. So It's not going to get me a girlfriend, or earn me any money.consider me : "Don't get into that scam, in the end you could lose a lot of money"Pyramid boy "Hey babe it's cool look at me I upgraded from a Fiat to a BMW, so don't take any notice of that guy who is practically homeless, let me sign you up"
Global WarmingMe : "I think they are overextrapolating the science"Greenboy : "Yeh babe, I love nature, come with me to the Greenpeace meeting, and let me sign you up for these solarpanels/electriccar,greenthis, greenthat, You'll be saving the planet and you'll get free electricity"and see they have lots of cool fantasies to hype up, while you guys talk about cloud forcing. ..Is it any wonder, the coolkids pick warmism ?
Em time for the LED Discussion thread to be started so you don't crowd the topics here ?
johannaI'm sitting on a good-sized stash of old fashioned Edison bulbs (which have now been banned in Australia, thanks to LINO Malcolm Turnbull) and waiting. It seems likely that LED will come good eventually, but as of now they are far too expensive and the quality of the light is variable. My old style bulbs last for years in low traffic areas, and cost about 50c.
I'm sitting on a good-sized stash of old fashioned Edison bulbs (which have now been banned in Australia, thanks to LINO Malcolm Turnbull) and waiting. It seems likely that LED will come good eventually, but as of now they are far too expensive and the quality of the light is variable. My old style bulbs last for years in low traffic areas, and cost about 50c.
Problem here (UK) is that ...a) There is currently no chance of a reversal of 'energy policy'. That is make it (energy) so expensive that one achieves 'demand management' (less use).
b) There is no form of 'democracy' here in The UK. The EU wants an energy price rise for 'demand management' purposes and that is what we get. We, The UK, can't vote upon anything 'EU', How many (UK citizens) voted for Barroso, Rompuy or Schulz? None, unlike AUS we simply have no way of getting rid of these people or their insane policies. See the mess they have made with The Ukraine - my vote simply didn't happen for some reason.
So... a discussion of the merits of (EU) LED can't be compared to (AUS) 'a good-sized stash of old fashioned Edison bulbs'. The bulbs may be cheap but power, in The UK, isn't.
Truth to be told, my conversion to LED has simply slowed the rise of my energy bills. There is no real financial incentive beyond that. Bills rise and one can hold that rise back, to an extent, but eventually the rise exceeds the savings and there are no more savings to be made. There is no way that I can make the saving from 200W to 20W (see my previous post) ever again but my energy bills continue to rise. There is no incentive other than to keep the lights burning in ones home. A warning for AUS if ever there was one
Does make me laugh when you get the 'Khmer verte' babbling on about 'electric vehicles'. Having made electrical power so expensive within The EU, who exactly, beyond rich idiots with money to burn, would buy a vehicle where the price of 'fuel' is heading for the stratosphere?
I think that you Aussies don't really understand what is going on here (UK/EU). You still get to throw out the previous 'Government' and change course via the whacky idea of 'elected representatives'. Here, no such thing exists. If 'Hitler' wanted any form of government it would be 'The EU'. He could announce himself 'President' and dictate to 500m people for a life time.
Anyway, at 50+, I have never had any kind of vote on any substantial 'EU' issue be it sending my energy bills through the stratosphere or clawing The Ukraine into our lovely family at the risk of war with Russia. We are governed by f*****g lunatics that we cannot, at the moment, get rid of. Here, your 'stash of light bulbs' will do you no good.
fwiw LED lamps
These can be very good (Megaman, Philips) or highly variable "nobrander" Chinese - I've now installed dozens.
The Chinese "SMD" bulbs with dozens of chips (both GU10 & MR16) - I haven't had a single failure but the phosphor recipe is very variable so buy a couple more than you need if evenness of colour rendition (if a replacement is required) is an issue. The "hi-power" ones are less successful with some having a 50% failure rate d/t poor design (usually bad LED thermal management) and wild variation in colour between batches....
The prices on the consistent quality Megaman items seem to have stabilised and people can't usually tell the difference to a standard incandescent with a warm white phosphor recipe.
You pays for what you get...
Thats what I assumed. But a 6 or 12v D.C. version would be more efficient, cheaper and last longer. There is a business opportunity for someone. I know there are problems with connecting semiconductors in paralell with the wide variation of formward resistance but I would have thought with so many connected in series - parallel combinations I would have though a D.C. Version would be possible at 6 or 12 or even 24v. Another possibility wilh automatic testing the LED 's could be matched for forward resistance this is already done with power semiconductors.
I take the point about electrolytic capacitors and I would probably use a battery system employing Lead acid batteries charged alternately or a mains D.C. power supply using non-electrolytic smoothing. The charger for my laptop seems quite reliable although I have no idea what the smoothing circuit is it seems very effective.Mar 8, 2014 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea
So far as I can see, you have to run them on 230Vac. The crappy (presumed) inverter electronics are built in and can't be bypassed.
in Pluone journal Feb 2014 "Significantly more vegetarians suffer from allergies, cancer, and mental health ailments (anxiety, or depression) than the other dietary habit groups"
I thought I heard coverage on a recent radio programme saying a recent study found vegetarians die younger .. But one study means nothing of course.. maybe it was the above
no problem here with PI archive - most browsers should render a .png OK. I was surprised at the extents of Lord Smiiffy's brazenness handing out EA nonjobs to Labour Party and other crony crew. I really do wonder about anybody who thinks it's a virtue putting a STD on their c.v.
Excellent debunking of the recent hysterical 'Protein eaters die early' story doing the rounds.
Statistical incompetence, vested interests and the holy grail of 'peer review' rear their heads again.The 'study's' authors claimed a 70% increase in mortality between middle-aged carnivores and veggies.
Turns out it's about 1%.
Here's the meat (so to speak).
"Joe, look at the raw data in table S1 and you will see that the all-cause mortality was the exact same rate between the low and high protein groups, and just slightly higher in the moderate protein group. It was about 40% for all groups.
If you want to look at the absolute number of people who died of cancer between the low and high protein groups (43 vs. 103) then the risk of cancer with high protein consumption would appear to increase substantially. However, when we consider that there were only 437 participants in the low protein group compared to 1,146 in the high protein group we see that the actual rate of cancer deaths were nearly the exact same (9.8 vs. 9.0%).
Unfortunately, what the authors did was take the number of people who died in each group and divide it by the total number in the study to arrive at the conclusion that the rate of cancer deaths was only .007% vs. .017% (which they claimed nearly doubled the risk!). This conclusion would be synonymous to me comparing cancer in Hawaii to California.
There are 1,360,000 people living in Hawaii. The cancer rate is .38% which would equate to 5,168 people having cancer.There are 37,000,000 people living in California. The cancer rate is also .38% which would equate to 140,600 people having cancer.
What the authors did was take the total amount of people between the two states (38,360,000) and calculate the cancer rate based upon this number.So for Hawaii 5,168/38,360,000 comes to .0001%For California 104,600/38,360,000 comes to .0036%Clearly living in California causes cancer.And therefore we can conclude that living in California increases the risk of cancer up to 36X and we should all move to Hawaii."
climacatastrophrenicsOne against 40,000. My one man protest at carnival in Madeira last week of dressing up as a duck to draw attention to fact that the magic money making biz TelexFree is a pyramid or ponzi scheme, didn't go down too well with people here. I realised that the problem is I am insulting the people's new religion. And once they are grabbed cult-like they enter some kind of psychosis where they are not rational, so you can't have rational conversation with people who aren't rational.- Of course I had already noticed parallels with the true believers of "climate catastrophe is certain" theory.
- When I was a true believer in climate catastrophe theory, I think I was a rational believer, as the belief was justified by the facts I had to hand, but as soon as I got new info I changed my mind about being certain. But as well as rational "true believers" there are cult "true believers", who are caught in a psychosis, and that accounts for the bile you see on their forums. You cannot expect reason from those suffering from the common psychosis I call warmiphrenia, or climacatastrophrenia. (coined from schizophrenic).- That's why I think you guys here who spend time debating with "green loonies" on the Guardian CInF pages are wasting your time.- Actually one intetesting chatacteristic is that when you sit down and talk withpeople it seems deep down inside they actually know they are wrong, but have put up someinternal wall to block this terrifying truth.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.