| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jim Thompson
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
 |
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:17:55 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:W17kk.542$JH5.461@trnddc06...
Obviously MT should be allowed to work. That could only be
good for everyone.
Absolutely.
I recently heard of a socialized medicine setup I might even
endorse: a city in Texas decided to offer their own. Locally
controlled, easily changed by the people in it, responsive to
their needs and desires. Offered for $40/month to any employed
person who wants it.
This could be BS though--I heard of it 3rd-hand by
word-of-mouth; haven>t verified the details yet.
Unless they contracted with doctors themselves, I suspect that $40/month isn>t
nearly enough for them to break even, unfortunately.
On the other hand, Wal*Mart clinics supposedly run ~$40-$65, which is not that
much more than some co-pays (it>s $35/visit on the plan I have at work, and
it>s counted as a "visit" even when you go to do something like pick up lab
test results and have the doctor spend literally less than 3 minutes with you
to tell you, "everything>s fine").
---Joel
[/quote]
"Executive" care is being offered by doctors in the Phoenix area for
$1K/year. They claim the number of patients they need to see per day
has dropped by 2/3 and their income is UP.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC>s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Liberals are so cute. Stupid as bricks, but cute. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Joel Koltner
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:9r1294hbfcub7oopbjmsddcglt2ek8leab@4ax.com...
[quote]"Executive" care is being offered by doctors in the Phoenix area for
$1K/year. They claim the number of patients they need to see per day
has dropped by 2/3 and their income is UP.
[/quote]
Does that cover just seeing doctors? Or does it include some degree of lab
work, procedures, etc.?
$1k/year sounds entirely reasonable for "basic" care. Certainly many
(possibly most) businesses are spending a lot more than that on their covered
employees.
---Joel |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim Thompson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:53:49 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:9r1294hbfcub7oopbjmsddcglt2ek8leab@4ax.com...
"Executive" care is being offered by doctors in the Phoenix area for
$1K/year. They claim the number of patients they need to see per day
has dropped by 2/3 and their income is UP.
Does that cover just seeing doctors? Or does it include some degree of lab
work, procedures, etc.?
$1k/year sounds entirely reasonable for "basic" care. Certainly many
(possibly most) businesses are spending a lot more than that on their covered
employees.
---Joel
[/quote]
As far as I know it just the cost of the doctor... I>m on Medicare
plus Mutual of Omaha Plan-F supplemental ($400/month for the both of
us), so I get very good service... zero additional cost.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC>s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Liberals are so cute. Stupid as bricks, but cute. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
JosephKK
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:37:44 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
[quote]Jan Panteltje wrote:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html
So, LEDs?
The guy contradicts himself. He says that the mercury vapour escapes
from the garbage truck before it gets to the landfill, and then he says
it>s locally dangerous, unlike power plant mercury.
Once the vapour is in the air, it>s very unlikely to wind up anywhere
but the ocean. 100 million CFLs per year is something like 1000 pounds
of mercury, spread out over the Earth.
It>s a nit, folks.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
[/quote]
A nit it may be. Kaleeforneeyah requires recycling of all fluorescent
lamps. And they do mean all. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
krw
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
In article <Vw7kk.364163$ng7.65621@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>,
zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com says...
[quote]"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:W17kk.542$JH5.461@trnddc06...
Obviously MT should be allowed to work. That could only be
good for everyone.
Absolutely.
I recently heard of a socialized medicine setup I might even
endorse: a city in Texas decided to offer their own. Locally
controlled, easily changed by the people in it, responsive to
their needs and desires. Offered for $40/month to any employed
person who wants it.
This could be BS though--I heard of it 3rd-hand by
word-of-mouth; haven>t verified the details yet.
Unless they contracted with doctors themselves, I suspect that $40/month isn>t
nearly enough for them to break even, unfortunately.
On the other hand, Wal*Mart clinics supposedly run ~$40-$65, which is not that
much more than some co-pays (it>s $35/visit on the plan I have at work, and
it>s counted as a "visit" even when you go to do something like pick up lab
test results and have the doctor spend literally less than 3 minutes with you
to tell you, "everything>s fine").
[/quote]
Get another doctor. Mine just has the receptionist call with
negative results.
--
Keith |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
JosephKK
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:01:25 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:
[quote]Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:g6ktas$bmo$1@aioe.org:
On a sunny day (Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:38:15 -0500) it happened Kris
Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in
arSdnZMVycO-axDVnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>:
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in news:g6k36a$8t4$1
@aioe.org:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html
So, LEDs?
Personally/IMO:
CFLs were and are an interim measure, IMO. I>ve had some CFLs that
have lasted for more than 6 years; and I>ve had others that blew out
after only several months. I>ve read that part of prolonging a CFL>s
service life is to leave it on for about 15 min after turning it on.
Once consideration with CFLs is that they put off a lot less heat than
do incandescents. I>ve had pet birds for at least 25 years, and have
been using CFLs for at least that long, one reason being that, if the
bird takes off and ends up plopping down onto a lamp, the CFLs are far
elss likely to cause burns. If I had kids, I>d be equally concerned.
But they do also reduce one>s electric bill, there>s no doubt about
that.
Also, in a hot climate, the most expensive thing is probably air
conditioning, so using CFLs contributes less to straining the AC than
did/do incandescents. I>ve been looking at household LEDs, tho' (not
just LEDs for my solar art lamp idea) and will start switching over,
because they don>t have the murcury problem as do CFLs.
LEDs are still much more expensive, for the same light as
for example normal fluorescents with magnetic ballast.
The LED price will have to come down by a factor 100 or so before
people will want to buy those.
Thats is a problem.
True, but I was buying CFLs before they became popular, so I figure that
I helped a little to bring down the price of CFLs <G!
What I like about LEDs is that they>re so much cooler to the touch, plus,
tehy use so littel elctricity. I tend to look at the long-term.
Also, a big plus is that, for places where I>d have to use a ladder to
reach the light bulbs, I>d just as soon put in a bulb that will operate
for as long as possible - the higher cost is well worth it to me to not
have to try balancing on a ladder while screweing around with glass items
;)
[/quote]
Yes, it is hard to disrespect 50,000 to 100,000 power on hours life. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Emanuele
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
Why don>t you post these things as comments to the blog,
http://dev.emcelettronica.com/luminous-efficacy, the author can probably
answer your questions, if he doesn>t I>ll push him to do so.
Emanuele
Don Klipstein ha scritto:
[quote]In article <g6p5m7$1q8f$1@newsreader2.mclink.it>, Emanuele wrote:
Jan Panteltje ha scritto:
An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/27/eco.flourescent/index.html
So, LEDs?
In this days i am writing an article about CFL and Leds.
I will post the link, just finished
These are the last related articles
SNIP
http://dev.emcelettronica.com/luminous-efficacy
On the 160 lm/W prototype, noted on the graph as a Cree one: Can you
cite a link to it? I frequently check into the "Press Room" section of
Cree>s website and I have yet to hear of this.
On the statement that 150-160 lumen/watt LEDs will be in production
within 1 or 2 years: It appeared to me to take 3 years from announcement
of a prototype to availability of production units for 60 lumens/watt.
That article states that 1, 3 and 5 watt HPLEDs have efficacies 10 times
more than that of incandescents. Ones achieving 100 lumens/watt do so
at 350 mA, which means slightly over 1 watt. 60 watt "standard" and
"soft white" 120V A19 incandescents achieve 14-14.8 lumens/watt and 100
watt ones achieve 16.9-17.5.
Efficacy is less at higher currents, even with Cree XRE, Seoul
Semiconductor P4, and Lumileds Luxeon Rebel and Luxeon K2/TFFC.
For example, according to Lumileds' "DS60" datasheet, the top rank of
Luxeon K2/TFFC has typical output of 170 lumens at 700 mA (and typical
voltage drop around 3.5 volts), for 69 lumens/watt. This figure decreases
as current increases from there. The best avauilable from Cree are a
little better.
I have yet to know of an available 3 watt LED that achieves 100
lumens/watt at 3 watts. Can you cite one that I can buy?
As for that chart showing among other things percentage of light from
the lamp exiting the luminaire ("efficienza corpo radiante"), where does
the 30-50% figure for incandescents, repeated for halogens, come from?
That chart also has this being 50-60% for CFLs but 95% for LEDs.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
[/quote]
--
YOUR ELECTRONICS OPEN SOURCE * http://dev.emcelettronica.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:44:54 +0000, James Arthur wrote:
[quote]Joel Koltner wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? Is the thinking something like, "well, if
you start working, clearly you>re not 100% 'disabled' now, are you? --
so we>re doing to start reducing your pension!" -- Or something
similarly ridiculous?
Obviously MT should be allowed to work. That could only be good for
everyone.
[/quote]
No, refraining from working is the price that MT has agreed to pay for
the disability money.
The guy that pays the piper calls the tune.
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
JosephKK
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:23:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]
Joel Koltner wrote:
Say Michael,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E9OdndpoQ8FseQ3VnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
I am
now 100% disabled, forced to live at a below poverty level on a VA
pension that says I am not allowed to work, at all, yet I continue to
help others.
Can you elaborate on this? Is the thinking something like, "well, if you
start working, clearly you>re not 100% 'disabled' now, are you? -- so we>re
doing to start reducing your pension!" -- Or something similarly ridiculous?
---Joel
Any paid work at all, and I lose both the pension, and the zero
co-pay on medication. IOW, it>s all or nothing with the VA. My military
medical records are missing, so i had to apply for 'non service
connected'. If it was the 'service connected' I should be receiving, I
would get over three times what I do, and be allowed dental care. They
would give me a power wheelchair and custom van every three years, as
well.
BTW, I tried to connect a printer to that last Mandriva Linux
computer you sent me, and it wants the administrator password. Could
you e-mail me about it?
[/quote]
In extremis, you could always use a live version. Mount the / and
/etc as needed and edit the passwd and shadow files as needed. Then
set the administrator passwords as you please. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
JosephKK
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: An interesting view on how 'green' CFLs really are: |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:53:49 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:9r1294hbfcub7oopbjmsddcglt2ek8leab@4ax.com...
"Executive" care is being offered by doctors in the Phoenix area for
$1K/year. They claim the number of patients they need to see per day
has dropped by 2/3 and their income is UP.
Does that cover just seeing doctors? Or does it include some degree of lab
work, procedures, etc.?
$1k/year sounds entirely reasonable for "basic" care. Certainly many
(possibly most) businesses are spending a lot more than that on their covered
employees.
---Joel
[/quote]
No kidding, both me and my employer are spending about $200/mo each
for about that level of care. Of course that includes major medical
as well, which could be significant added risk. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
