 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Humanity's sake" is all nice and good, but if these grid projects are to
> achive better success, they should consider some minimal payment, to
> compensate for energy usage at least. Nothing is free, and in the end, that
> anti cancer drug you help discover (albeit in an extremely minor way) will
> be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when you
> need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
> domain and patent free.
Many of the projects are not-for-profit reserach organizations. And would you
rather have a cure available?? Or not? Keep in mind, the current approach of
cutting someone open and removing the offending parts is very expensive,
painful and risky to the patient. Overall, when a better method is discovered,
it will probably cost LESS to treat the patient then the current approaches.
And this will make the insurance costs for everyone begin to decrease over
time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> > OK, I rephrase: I personally have yet to see a "white" LED that wasn't
> > actually pale blue.
> That's because you're used to "normal" light bulbs that are very very yellow
> (just try taking a photo indoors with the camera on "outdoor" setting and
> you'll see what I mean). It's not that LED manufacturers can't make this
> colour, it's just there is no demand for it (backlights for LCDs need a much
> bluer white than normal light bulbs). If you want to make a yellower colour
> yourself then you can make your own yellow phosphor to put on a blue LED, or
> just place some yellow LEDs around the white ones :-)
The main problem with "white" leds is that they are not white. They emit
a set of very narrow frequency spectra, which might fool the eye to believe
it's white, but since it's not, it kills colors. Everything lighted by them
will look pale and colorless because the led is simply not emitting light
at almost any frequency (only very narrow peaks in the frequency spectrum
here and there).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The microwave oven, however, is electronic. I haven't measured it, but
> it's rated at 900W. (I have no idea whether that means it uses 900W of
> juice, or just that it produces 900W of microwave energy.)
Conservation of energy would dictate that it would take at least 900W of
electricity to make 900W of microwave power.
At 240 volts, that's only ~4amps Obviously there are losses so it takes
more power to create the radio waves. Try hooking 2 microwaves to the
same breaker, and see how long before it pops. (Assuming your breakers
are 5A or 7.5A (rather than 15A like they are here, if they're 15A like
here, it'll take a couple more microwave ovens.) But, still, much less
than an electric stove.
>> Anyway, there is this problem that your PC may be on for periods much
>> longer that the washing machine.
>
> Like I said, playing CSS (which you're presume is a reasonably intensive
> task) for 2 hours solid used a fraction of one kWh. I don't know what it
> uses if I run the computer for an entire day (presumably it varies by
> the task I set it to do), but I imagine running the washing machine
> several times per day - or accidentally leaving the lights on - uses far
> more power.
I need to get one of those current meters and see how much power things
draw.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> LEDs are indeed efficient, but the main problems currently seem to be
> making "white" light with them, and illuminating large areas.
I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until
manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so you
have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping them from
coming to mass market.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
feet1st wrote:
> Many of the projects are not-for-profit reserach organizations.
And the researchers there work without salary?
> And would you rather have a cure available?? Or not?
And the cure, when found, will be distributed free of charge?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> I was encouraged to install this app on my workplace box-- a laptop-- by my
> employer. I have to put my laptop into standby mode about a half times a day.
> I found that the WCG system never woke up from the coma after these standby's.
> I eventually un-installed it.
The client has been improved in several ways, please try again, you
would be DIRECTLY helping research cures/treatment for diseases.
Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until
> manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so you
> have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping them
> from coming to mass market.
Mmm, cynical, *much*? :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Humanity's sake" is all nice and good, but if these grid projects are to
> achive better success, they should consider some minimal payment, to
> compensate for energy usage at least. Nothing is free, and in the end, that
> anti cancer drug you help discover (albeit in an extremely minor way) will
> be sold to you at hundereds or thousands of dollars a pop if and when you
> need it. An alternative is to make such research and end products public
> domain and patent free.
If you had ever visited the WCG web, you wouldn't be posting this. You
post out of ignorance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:56:59 +0100, scott wrote:
> LEDs are the way forward, they are more efficient (and getting more
> efficient the whole time) and more environmentally friendly (they don't
> contain mercury) and fix almost all of the disadvantages CFLs have.
> Just wait...
Waiting....so far the LED bulbs that I've seen have underwhelmed in terms
of output.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:08:34 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I think the main problem is they last *way* too long, and until
>> manufacturers can figure out how to make them burn out frequently so
>> you have to replace them, they'll have all kinds of problems keeping
>> them from coming to mass market.
>
> Mmm, cynical, *much*? :-D
It's a real problem in product marketing - if a product works too well
(whatever it is, a light bulb, a car, an operating system), people aren't
pushed to replace it or upgrade it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
