It is a special day today

[~BD~]

I don't think you should keep this important information away from those
who really need to know, Mr Foldes.

I had geat difficulty with one word you used (an odd one for a retired
electrician, I thought) but I found an answer here
http://www.homogenic.net/

What you actually said:-

"As a retired electrician I can confidently tell you that leaving
something electrical on all day will use less energy then opening and
closing it 3 times
Leaving the computer on all the time will not do harm to the system and
will use up less energy.

My servers are on 24\365 with the exceptions when I insert or take out
Hard Drives or upgrade hardware"

I wonder if others here agree with you. On the other hand, a computer is
of no use to a botnet if it is switched off, is it?

Dave



"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
news:eqE8oRzYJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> New virus found. The name of it is ~BD~ . Watch out for this one it is
> very unstable and homogenic

 

[Rabbit]

A computer is of no use to a botnet if the said computer is not
compromised - JERK!


"~BD~" wrote in message
news:uDn6d31YJHA.556@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I don't think you should keep this important information away from those
>who really need to know, Mr Foldes.
>
> I had geat difficulty with one word you used (an odd one for a retired
> electrician, I thought) but I found an answer here
> http://www.homogenic.net/
>
> What you actually said:-
>
> "As a retired electrician I can confidently tell you that leaving
> something electrical on all day will use less energy then opening and
> closing it 3 times
> Leaving the computer on all the time will not do harm to the system and
> will use up less energy.
>
> My servers are on 24365 with the exceptions when I insert or take out
> Hard Drives or upgrade hardware"
>
> I wonder if others here agree with you. On the other hand, a computer is
> of no use to a botnet if it is switched off, is it?

>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
> news:eqE8oRzYJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> New virus found. The name of it is ~BD~ . Watch out for this one it is
>> very unstable and homogenic
>
>

 

[BurfordTJustice]

U R A Thief

"~BD~" wrote in message
news:uDn6d31YJHA.556@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
..

I had geat difficulty with one word you used

 

[Anteaus]

There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the energy-usage of
electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the typical
users' utter ignorance of such matters.

One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy' when
starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory keeps
getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not unlike a
spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.

On one site of mine the safety guy put-up notices telling users to switch
off the network printers because (he had been told) they "Used as much
electricity overnight as it took to print 1,000 sheets"

The manufacturer's manual comfirmed that these printers used something like
3W in standby, a totally insignificant amount.

The outcome was that the server print-queues overflowed as a result of users
forgetting to switch the printers back on, and an engineer had to be sent to
look at the server to find out why. The cost of this in terms of road-fuel
energy would have printed the entire text of War and Peace. And, then some.
;-)

"~BD~" wrote:

>
> What you actually said:-
>
> "As a retired electrician I can confidently tell you that leaving
> something electrical on all day will use less energy then opening and
> closing it 3 times
> Leaving the computer on all the time will not do harm to the system and
> will use up less energy.

 

[~BD~]

Thanks for your post, Anteaus. I enjoyed your amusing tale about the
printers!

I'd be grateful if you would clarify. Is Peter Foldes statement correct
in your opinion?

Thanks,

Dave


"Anteaus" wrote in message
news:1F7FD653-4997-4B81-B40E-4F08BC180996@microsoft.com...
> There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the
> energy-usage of
> electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the
> typical
> users' utter ignorance of such matters.
>
> One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy'
> when
> starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory
> keeps
> getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
> unlike a
> spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test
> (which
> anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
> electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.
>
> On one site of mine the safety guy put-up notices telling users to
> switch
> off the network printers because (he had been told) they "Used as much
> electricity overnight as it took to print 1,000 sheets"
>
> The manufacturer's manual comfirmed that these printers used something
> like
> 3W in standby, a totally insignificant amount.
>
> The outcome was that the server print-queues overflowed as a result of
> users
> forgetting to switch the printers back on, and an engineer had to be
> sent to
> look at the server to find out why. The cost of this in terms of
> road-fuel
> energy would have printed the entire text of War and Peace. And, then
> some.
> ;-)
>
> "~BD~" wrote:
>
>>
>> What you actually said:-
>>
>> "As a retired electrician I can confidently tell you that leaving
>> something electrical on all day will use less energy then opening and
>> closing it 3 times
>> Leaving the computer on all the time will not do harm to the system
>> and
>> will use up less energy.
>

 

[M.I.5¾]

"Anteaus" wrote in message
news:1F7FD653-4997-4B81-B40E-4F08BC180996@microsoft.com...
> There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the energy-usage
> of
> electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the typical
> users' utter ignorance of such matters.
>
> One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy' when
> starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory keeps
> getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
> unlike a
> spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
> anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
> electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.
>

One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note, they do
take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a few hundreds
of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy is negligible.

But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of the
tube (for technical reasons). This increases the running costs by virtue of
the replacement costs (and manufacture of the new tube equires energy).
There comes a point where if you turn the light on and off frequently
enough, it actually is cheaper (for the end user) to leave it on permanently
(though not for the usually cited reason), and environmentally cheaper as
well considering the manufacturing energy and that the mercury ends up in
landfill.

 

[Peter Foldes]

"M.I.5¾" wrote in message
news:494f6629$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Anteaus" wrote in message
> news:1F7FD653-4997-4B81-B40E-4F08BC180996@microsoft.com...
>> There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the
>> energy-usage of
>> electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the
>> typical
>> users' utter ignorance of such matters.
>>
>> One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy'
>> when
>> starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory
>> keeps
>> getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
>> unlike a
>> spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test
>> (which
>> anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary
>> house
>> electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.
>>
>
> One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
> fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note,
> they do take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a
> few hundreds of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy
> is negligible.
>
> But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of
> the tube (for technical reasons). This increases the running costs by
> virtue of the replacement costs (and manufacture of the new tube
> equires energy). There comes a point where if you turn the light on
> and off frequently enough, it actually is cheaper (for the end user)
> to leave it on permanently (though not for the usually cited reason),
> and environmentally cheaper as well considering the manufacturing
> energy and that the mercury ends up in landfill.
>
>

I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said to
him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".

He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
using frustrating?

Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of Dave's
deceased son.

I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd been
banned:-


"Grybeard" wrote in message
> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
> Reckon he finally figured it out?
>
> Sure was dense for a supposedly English gentleman...



"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
news:u2PeUW4YJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Most if not all Englishmen are extremely bright but when a Englishman
> is stupid then he is really stupid. This one takes after Chamberlain.
> Nuf said
>

 

[~BD~]

"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
news:giof7q$km$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said to
> him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".
>
> He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
> awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
> using frustrating?
>
> Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of
> Dave's
> deceased son.
>
> I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd been
> banned:-
>
>
> "Grybeard" wrote in message
>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>> Reckon he finally figured it out?
>>
>> Sure was dense for a supposedly English gentleman...
>
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
> news:u2PeUW4YJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Most if not all Englishmen are extremely bright but when a Englishman
>> is stupid then he is really stupid. This one takes after Chamberlain.
>> Nuf said
>>
>
>
>

You are correct, Mr Peter Foldes. Thick as two short planks, eh?!!

Not sure how to take your comment about Chamberlain, though. Would you
care to explain?

Dave

 

[BurfordTJustice]

"~BD~" wrote in message
news:%23JmEw$FZJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Would you care to explain? Why you are a Cyber Thief.

Dave

 

[Peter Foldes]

LOL. And nothing gets past you. I do not know who you are answering to , but it sure
is not me. Now you see my name and you do not even check the posting Properties
anymore. Dave stop your silliness and get a life already

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"~BD~" wrote in message
news:%23JmEw$FZJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
> news:giof7q$km$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said to
>> him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".
>>
>> He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
>> awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
>> using frustrating?
>>
>> Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of Dave's
>> deceased son.
>>
>> I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd been
>> banned:-
>>
>>
>> "Grybeard" wrote in message
>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>> Reckon he finally figured it out?
>>>
>>> Sure was dense for a supposedly English gentleman...
>>
>>
>>
>> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
>> news:u2PeUW4YJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Most if not all Englishmen are extremely bright but when a Englishman is stupid
>>> then he is really stupid. This one takes after Chamberlain. Nuf said
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You are correct, Mr Peter Foldes. Thick as two short planks, eh?!!
>
> Not sure how to take your comment about Chamberlain, though. Would you care to
> explain?
>
> Dave
>

 

[~BD~]

" ....... and get a life already!" ??? So you *are* Jewish.

I don't mind that at all!

You might like this
http://www.aish.com/chanukahbasics/chanuka..._Christmas$.asp

Dave


"Peter Foldes" wrote in message
news:eY4tz5GZJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> LOL. And nothing gets past you. I do not know who you are answering to
> , but it sure is not me. Now you see my name and you do not even check
> the posting Properties anymore. Dave stop your silliness and get a
> life already
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "~BD~" wrote in message
> news:%23JmEw$FZJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
>> news:giof7q$km$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said
>>> to
>>> him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".
>>>
>>> He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
>>> awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
>>> using frustrating?
>>>
>>> Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of
>>> Dave's
>>> deceased son.
>>>
>>> I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd
>>> been
>>> banned:-
>>>
>>>
>>> "Grybeard" wrote in message
>>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>>> Reckon he finally figured it out?
>>>>
>>>> Sure was dense for a supposedly English gentleman...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
>>> news:u2PeUW4YJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> Most if not all Englishmen are extremely bright but when a
>>>> Englishman is stupid then he is really stupid. This one takes after
>>>> Chamberlain. Nuf said
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You are correct, Mr Peter Foldes. Thick as two short planks, eh?!!
>>
>> Not sure how to take your comment about Chamberlain, though. Would
>> you care to explain?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>

 

[~BD~]

"BurfordTJustice" wrote in message
news:WeWdnTVhs5qgb9LUnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@trueband.net...
>
> "~BD~" wrote in message
> news:%23JmEw$FZJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Would you care to explain? Why you are a Cyber Thief.
>
> Dave
>
>

Cybercrime *does* pay; here's how:
http://computershopper.com.com/4520-3513_7-6427016-1.html

HTH

Dave

 

[Bill in Co.]

M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Anteaus" wrote in message
> news:1F7FD653-4997-4B81-B40E-4F08BC180996@microsoft.com...
>> There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the energy-usage
>> of electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the
>> typical
>> users' utter ignorance of such matters.
>>
>> One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy' when
>> starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory keeps
>> getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
>> unlike a
>> spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
>> anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
>> electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.
>>
>
> One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
> fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note, they
> do
> take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a few hundreds
> of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy is negligible.
>
> But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of the
> tube (for technical reasons).

Also true for incandescent lights, due to the sudden current onrush (a cold
tungsten filament has much lower resistance than when its hot, so the
initial current onrush is pretty high, contributing to the filament's
failure mode).

But I don't know if the overall lifetime of an incandescent light bulb (like
a typical 60 W bulb) is shortened more by this than it would be by leaving
it on continuously. I suppose that would depend on how often it's turned
on and off. Like if it's only turned on and off once or twice a day, who
knows? (I'm sure someone has the data on this, though)

> This increases the running costs by virtue of
> the replacement costs (and manufacture of the new tube equires energy).
> There comes a point where if you turn the light on and off frequently
> enough, it actually is cheaper (for the end user) to leave it on
> permanently
> (though not for the usually cited reason), and environmentally cheaper as
> well considering the manufacturing energy and that the mercury ends up in
> landfill.

 

[none]

~BD~ wrote:
> " ....... and get a life already!" ??? So you *are* Jewish.
>
> I don't mind that at all!

>
> You might like this
> http://www.aish.com/chanukahbasics/chanuka..._Christmas$.asp
>
> Dave
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
> news:eY4tz5GZJHA.1272@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> LOL. And nothing gets past you. I do not know who you are answering to
>> , but it sure is not me. Now you see my name and you do not even check
>> the posting Properties anymore. Dave stop your silliness and get a
>> life already
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>
>> "~BD~" wrote in message
>> news:%23JmEw$FZJHA.4456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
>>> news:giof7q$km$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said
>>>> to
>>>> him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".
>>>>
>>>> He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
>>>> awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
>>>> using frustrating?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of
>>>> Dave's
>>>> deceased son.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd
>>>> been
>>>> banned:-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Grybeard" wrote in message
>>>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>>>> Reckon he finally figured it out?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure was dense for a supposedly English gentleman...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
>>>> news:u2PeUW4YJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Most if not all Englishmen are extremely bright but when a
>>>>> Englishman is stupid then he is really stupid. This one takes after
>>>>> Chamberlain. Nuf said
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are correct, Mr Peter Foldes. Thick as two short planks, eh?!!
>>>
>>> Not sure how to take your comment about Chamberlain, though. Would
>>> you care to explain?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>
>

Now you are challenging people on things they have never said. Take a
pill and calm down for heavens sake.

 

[~BD~]

"none" wrote in message
news:uRVl4MKZJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> "Peter Foldes" wrote in message
>>>>> news:u2PeUW4YJHA.1532@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Most if not all Englishmen are extremely bright but when a
>>>>>> Englishman is stupid then he is really stupid. This one takes
>>>>>> after Chamberlain. Nuf said
>
> Now you are challenging people on things they have never said. Take a
> pill and calm down for heavens sake.


Maybe there was too much for you to read through, Richard!

See what Andrew Taylor said, here:
news:494ee9a3@newsgate.x-privat.org...

I've been asking Mr Foldes to say a few words about the kind of business
he's in for nearly three years, but he's *very* secretive about it.
Maybe he'll tell *you* if you ask him!

If it's Kosher, that's fine. I'm only concerned with bad guys!

Have a great Christmas and may God bless you.

Dave

 

[M.I.5¾]

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
news:Ogq5SUHZJHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>> "Anteaus" wrote in message
>> news:1F7FD653-4997-4B81-B40E-4F08BC180996@microsoft.com...
>>> There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the
>>> energy-usage
>>> of electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the
>>> typical
>>> users' utter ignorance of such matters.
>>>
>>> One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy' when
>>> starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory keeps
>>> getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
>>> unlike a
>>> spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
>>> anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
>>> electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.
>>>
>>
>> One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
>> fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note, they
>> do
>> take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a few
>> hundreds
>> of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy is negligible.
>>
>> But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of
>> the
>> tube (for technical reasons).
>
> Also true for incandescent lights, due to the sudden current onrush (a
> cold tungsten filament has much lower resistance than when its hot, so the
> initial current onrush is pretty high, contributing to the filament's
> failure mode).
>
> But I don't know if the overall lifetime of an incandescent light bulb
> (like a typical 60 W bulb) is shortened more by this than it would be by
> leaving it on continuously. I suppose that would depend on how often
> it's turned on and off. Like if it's only turned on and off once or
> twice a day, who knows? (I'm sure someone has the data on this, though)
>

Urban Myth.

A filament bulb's life is not shortened in the slightest by switching it on
(and in those applications where they are regularly switched on an off,
there is no reduction in life (traffic lights or even Belisha beacons for
example). Although for most constructions of lamp, when it is time for it
to die, switch on is the most likely time it will happen if it is switched
on and off a lot. The Underwriter's Laboratory have recently done
considerable research into this (though it was directed mainly at the
stupendously short lives Compact Fluorescent Lamps can have when they are
switched on and off*).

* Basically they discovered what electrical engineers already knew: that the
claimed 8000 or 15,000 hour life is only obtainable if the lamps are run
permanently powered. If they are switched on and off, the life is more
accurately expressed in power cycles, typically 300-700 cycles (meaning that
in many applications they will have a shorter life than the filament bulb
they replace). The UL also confirmed that the claimed light output and
efficiency gain is an artificially inflated figure based on a 'design' light
output and not the real light output and that they dim rapidly as they age.

 

[Bill in Co.]

M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Bill in Co." wrote in message
> news:Ogq5SUHZJHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>> "Anteaus" wrote in message
>>> news:1F7FD653-4997-4B81-B40E-4F08BC180996@microsoft.com...
>>>> There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the
>>>> energy-usage
>>>> of electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the
>>>> typical
>>>> users' utter ignorance of such matters.
>>>>
>>>> One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy'
>>>> when
>>>> starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory
>>>> keeps
>>>> getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
>>>> unlike a
>>>> spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
>>>> anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
>>>> electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
>>> fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note,
>>> they
>>> do
>>> take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a few
>>> hundreds
>>> of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy is negligible.
>>>
>>> But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of
>>> the
>>> tube (for technical reasons).
>>
>> Also true for incandescent lights, due to the sudden current onrush (a
>> cold tungsten filament has much lower resistance than when its hot, so
>> the
>> initial current onrush is pretty high, contributing to the filament's
>> failure mode).
>>
>> But I don't know if the overall lifetime of an incandescent light bulb
>> (like a typical 60 W bulb) is shortened more by this than it would be by
>> leaving it on continuously. I suppose that would depend on how often
>> it's turned on and off. Like if it's only turned on and off once or
>> twice a day, who knows? (I'm sure someone has the data on this, though)
>>
>
> Urban Myth.
>
> A filament bulb's life is not shortened in the slightest by switching it
> on
> (and in those applications where they are regularly switched on an off,
> there is no reduction in life (traffic lights or even Belisha beacons for
> example).

I don't think it's a myth at all. It's the basic physics of metal fatigue:

The sudden expansion and stress on the metal tungsten filament, due to the
huge current inrush when the filament is cold (because it has a very low
resistance then), directly contributes to metal fatigue. One cause of any
metal fatigue is sudden expansion and/or contraction.

As I recall, when I used an old analog ohmmeter (a Simpson) to measure the
cold resistance (obviously) of a 60W incandescent bulb, it was around 20
ohms, or so.
So, on 120 VAC, the initial current surge is around 6.0 Amps!! Obviously
after the filament has warmed up to its normal operating temperature a few
seconds later, it drops to its normal value, of around 0.5A.

> Although for most constructions of lamp, when it is time for it
> to die, switch on is the most likely time it will happen if it is switched
> on and off a lot.

That is true too. Actually, even if it isn't switched on and off "a lot".
I believe it happens more often than not, even if it's only switched on and
off once a day.

> The Underwriter's Laboratory have recently done
> considerable research into this (though it was directed mainly at the
> stupendously short lives Compact Fluorescent Lamps can have when they are
> switched on and off*).

Fluorescent lamps, however, are *completely different*! (obviously)

> * Basically they discovered what electrical engineers already knew: that
> the
> claimed 8000 or 15,000 hour life is only obtainable if the lamps are run
> permanently powered. If they are switched on and off, the life is more
> accurately expressed in power cycles, typically 300-700 cycles (meaning
> that
> in many applications they will have a shorter life than the filament bulb
> they replace). The UL also confirmed that the claimed light output and
> efficiency gain is an artificially inflated figure based on a 'design'
> light
> output and not the real light output and that they dim rapidly as they
> age.

 

[Paul Adare]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:18:12 -0700, Bill in Co. wrote:

> I don't think it's a myth at all. It's the basic physics of metal fatigue:

As interesting as this discussion maybe to some, it has nothing at all to
do with any of the news groups to which it is being cross-posted. Can you
please take this to email, or find a more appropriate location to carry on
this discussion?

Thanks.

--
Paul Adare
MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
http://www.identit.ca

 

[~BD~]

"Andrew Taylor" wrote in
message news:49508193@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> "~BD~" wrote in message
> news:uy8i$dGZJHA.652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> You have more faith in him than I do, Andrew!
>
> I do David. As we say in England, "I speak as I find". I have ne
> reason whatever to think that Peter is one of your 'bad guys'. I also
> find your hounding of him a little off-putting, worrying (for you) and
> very distasteful. I would expect better of an English gentleman who
> has served his country in the Royal Air Force.


I have NEVER served in the RAF Andrew! My surviving son has - albeit
that he is retiring (early) as a Squadrn Leader at the end of this
month.


>> I do NOT believe that leaving anything which consumes electrical
>> energy, left 'on' 24/7, consumes less power than having it 'on' for,
>> say, three 1 hour sessions in 24 hours. IMO, what he said is rubbish!
>>
> I know very few people if any that use a computer powered up for 3
> hours a day. In that scenario, it is bound to save energy, even more
> if they had 3 one minute sessions, or 3 thirty second sessions!


No-one mentioned computers specifically in this regard - PF said
"something electrical"


>> When did PF change into an electrician, btw? I'm quite sure you once
>> told me that he was/is a Computer Scientist?!!
>>
> I don't ever recall calling Peter a 'scientist', computer or
> otherwise, and have never thought of him as a scientist. To my mind a
> scientist sits in a laboratory in a white coat and does experiments
> with 'stuff'. I know of his computer knowledge and I know his
> business. I have told you, reminded you, at least three times, but you
> choose to ignore what I say. To put it politely, you are pig-headed in
> the extreme.


The mind plays tricks on everyone Andrew. I'm confident that you said so
though. A far cry from being 'an electrician' don't you think?


>> You also mention his 'business' not once, but twice! As someone who,
>> as a boy of four years old he once said, he was rescued from a
>> concentration camp in Germany - do you think that his 'business' may
>> have something to do with the Jews/Israel rather than with
>> Cybercrime?
>>
> Peter had a boy late in life with a new partner, so what? People do
> this all the time.


Where did that come from? I've never heard tell of that before. I do
recall that his *daughter* called for help on Annexcafe when Peter
Foldes was at death's door.

He himself mentioned not long ago that he had been rescued from a
concentration camp at the age of four ( He may have said Dachau, but
there were many, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conce...of_Nazi_Germany
)


> The last part of your paragraph is sheer fantasy, and in my mind is
> laughable and for you, your possible downfall, as it is libellous. Do
> you realise that the printed word on the Internet which defames
> someone and causes them damage in business or personal life is
> enforcable through the courts. You state the you think he was/is
> involved in Cybercrime and now you wonder he is semetic. I don't think
> Peter has anything to do with Jews or Israel, and certainly nothing to
> do with Cybercrime, other than to actively help people who have
> problems with their computer for whatever reason, including prevention
> of crime, viruses, hackware and malware. David, as you have been told
> many times, you really do need to find an new interest in life. This
> one man crusade has the makings of ruining your life. One day when you
> have 10 hours to spare Google 'Les Kellett'.
>
>> Interesting twist?
>>
> Only in you mind David, only in your mind.
>


My concern is to identify anyone who is involved, in any way, with those
around the world who may wish to kill us, Andrew.

If you believe that the bad guys, including Islamic terrorists, are
*not* using the Internet, it is /you/ who live in cloud-cukoo land!

I'll look up Les Kellet after Christmas. I'm off now to spend time with
my family.

*You* are a good man, Andrew. May God bless you and yours.

Happy Christmas!

Dave

PS As I've told you before, just like 007 *my* sevice was in the Royal
Navy!

 

[~BD~]

It need be of no concern to you, Mr Adare. Just do not read the
messages!

Perhaps you are irritable because

a) You are still far from home so close to Christmas, or

Once again you cannot sleep and are posting in the middle of the
night

(You never did tell me what time it would be in Canada at the time of
your post(s) - today's being at 0845 GMT)

To any of the good guys reading here (most of you I'm sure of that!) I
wish you and your families a very Happy Christmas and a peaceful 2009.

Dave


"Paul Adare" wrote in message
news:lj7mn018dp52.23m0a70ejj2y.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:18:12 -0700, Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's a myth at all. It's the basic physics of metal
>> fatigue:
>
> As interesting as this discussion maybe to some, it has nothing at all
> to
> do with any of the news groups to which it is being cross-posted. Can
> you
> please take this to email, or find a more appropriate location to
> carry on
> this discussion?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Paul Adare
> MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
> http://www.identit.ca