 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
