> How about sunlight? Is that yellow too? (I mean, by the time it reaches 
> the ground.)

It's really difficult to say, as everything to do with "white" is relative 
and your brain does a really good job of filtering out changes in white 
balance of your environment.

Here's a chart I found detailing the sunlight spectrum:

http://org.ntnu.no/solarcells/pics/chap2/Solar_Spectrum.png

You tell me if that's "yellow" or not :-)

> Heh. The trouble is the light in my room ("energy saving bulb") gives off 
> such a pinky yellowy colour that I can't actually tell whether an item of 
> clothing is blue or black. :-P

That's not so much to do with the absolute colour of the white light, but 
with the spectrum.  If you have two monochromatic light sources from a 
yellowy-red laser and a blue laser you can make white light.  THe problem is 
when you try to illuminate something with that white light, the only thing 
you will see is how well the object reflects those particular two laser 
wavelengths.  On the other hand, white light from a black body gives you a 
much better impression of the "colour" of an object because it consists of 
visible light from all wavelengths.  There's a thing called "colour 
rendering index" (CRI) that describes this quality of white light.

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:49b40bc4$1@news.povray.org...
> http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/about_us/viewAboutUs.do
>
> http://www.one.org/
>
> If you have any spare core(s)/CPU(s) please help to help, is for
> Humanity sake, thank you.

"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.

Post a reply to this message

If the concern is really over electricity usage, consider that a supercomputer
center is always climate controlled, year-round. Whereas leaving my home
computer powered on (with monitor off) 24hrs a day is helping reduce my usage
of propane to heat my home during the winter months. All while helping
scientists learn how they will cure me of cancer when I reach that stage in
life.

To build a supercomputer center requires many years, and committees, and who
decides what runs on it? And who will fund the construction? Who funds the
ongoing operations? What does the machine do when it would otherwise be idle?
Sometimes all the bureaucracy that surrounds such projects gets in the way of
good fundamental science.

Learn more about Rosetta@home. Helping do the research with my home computer is
something that can be done today. No need for a government approval or
committee meeting. I've got it running right now, in the idle time between
keystrokes. The cost of the power used by a computer is minimal compared to the
cost of trying to treat someone with cancer using today's methods. Think of it
as an insurance policy. Or a savings plan with compound interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzATbET3g54
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta

Post a reply to this message

> "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] scottcom> 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