 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing, when you're talking a $70K automobile,
for example. But when your competition costs $1, charging $15 for a
lightbulb that lasts 50x as long just doesn't work.
It's the same problem with boots as Terry Pratchette describes.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
That's simple. Overdrive them ever so slightly. They'll eventually die
off. When enough of the LEDs in the fixture die, people will buy more.
Although, I'm more for a light that lasts for a very long time. Less
crap in the landfill is always a good thing. Too bad we can't adjust
society to one where money is not the central element.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:34:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That isn't necessarily a bad thing, when you're talking a $70K
> automobile, for example. But when your competition costs $1, charging
> $15 for a lightbulb that lasts 50x as long just doesn't work.
>
> It's the same problem with boots as Terry Pratchette describes.
Yep, agreed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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?
>
You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link I
have provided, please visit them.
Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-3-2009 10:37, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> Are you cooking electric? How do you heat your house?
>
> Both of those are gas.
just asking. I think I heard that in the UK many cook electric.
>
> 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.)
>
>> 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
Why would you do that? We do on average one wash a week, I think.
> - or accidentally leaving the lights on -
Depends on the lights.
> uses far more power.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link I
> have provided, please visit them.
Fail.
As best as I can tell, the answer is "No" and "No." Had the "completed
research" links actually pointed to the completed research, I might have
thought it was worthwhile.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Are you cooking electric? How do you heat your house?
>>
>> Both of those are gas.
>
> just asking. I think I heard that in the UK many cook electric.
Sure. I know people who do have electric heating and cooking. It's just
that our particular house doesn't.
>> imagine running the washing machine several times per day
>
> Why would you do that? We do on average one wash a week, I think.
Because by the time the weekend arrives, there's quite a lot of clothing
to wash.
>> - or accidentally leaving the lights on -
>
> Depends on the lights.
Well, our front room has a light fitting that contains five 100W bulbs.
This, I presume, uses 500W of power.
(It's also seriously difficult to change the bulbs, BTW. I hate that
light fitting so much!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-3-2009 19:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 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.
I am not a world class expert in inter-human communication, but I think
that last remark may not be totally compatible with a civilized exchange
of ideas. As such it may not be effective in convincing people that you
are promoting humanity.
Is there something going on in the climate or something, I have seen
more apparently irritated comments by people that are normally as
friendly as anything recently. Trying to remember my most recent
communications, did I also cross that line?...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscape net> wrote in message
news:49b55b2a$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > 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.
Fair enough, my mistake. I did miss the "all results will be in the public
domain" part.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> You can find all the answers for these questions and more in the link
>> I have provided, please visit them.
>
> Fail.
>
> As best as I can tell, the answer is "No" and "No." Had the "completed
> research" links actually pointed to the completed research, I might have
> thought it was worthwhile.
Oh, I see. It does promise to make results public domain. Actually saying
that might have helped, since they don't actually have a search feature on
their site, for example. :-) I didn't think it was worth the time roaming
thru an entire web site looking for a question that might not have been
answered, just so I can give *them* some money.
Just a hint, tho? When you're asking someone to do something nice and
selfless for you, it's usually a good idea not to be obnoxious about
answering the question "Why should I?" :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
