From: Steve on 11 Nov 2009 11:14
> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
>> It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort
>> went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I
>> guess thats gratitude for you.... :-(
> I think you are right in a sense. There is no gratitude. Did we not
> see the
> millenium coming for the entire history of modern computing???
But, much as the designers of the 1957 BelAir and 1968 Roadrunner didn't
expect those vehicles to remain hugely popular in 2009 and didn't design
them for that kind of lifespan and maintainability, software developers
in 1988 didn't REALLY expect their code snippets (or hell, whole
programs!) to still be running in 1999/2000.
From: Steve on 11 Nov 2009 11:22
Bill Putney wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> And of course elemental lead and mercury have an entirely different
>> toxicity level than lead and mercury compounds. Handling or working
>> with metallic lead is very different from eating lead compounds in
>> paint, for example. A senior co-worker tells of how he used to bite
>> the end of leaded solder wire to flatten it when he was fabricating
>> circuits back in the 50s, and in my own generation we used to play
>> with balls of mercury dipped from the open-beaker barometer in the
>> school science lab. I don't recommend either practice and I'm glad
>> we're more aware of toxins these days, but it does make me laugh my
>> head off when someone panics and practically calls in the hazmat squad
>> over the breaking of a compact fluorescent lamp. :-p
> Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like
> him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% committed
> to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that transition
> (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are claimed to be the
> same light levels,
Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs
anymore. What I still don't like is the fact that initial light output
is VERY low until the tube heats up. I'm even more impressed with the
LED replacement fixtures I've seen- in terms of color rendering AND in
terms of light output as well as being truly instant-on. What doesn't
impress me (at least not positively...) is the $50 cost of a PAR-30 LED
flood in 50-watt equivalent light output. Gads. Even I'm smart enough to
know that it won't really last the 10+ years it would need to break
even... I'll lose the darn thing or replace the lamp it fits before
then! I do believe the cost will drop, though. The big problem I see
for LEDs is getting them to work in a non-flood configuration (ie,
radiate light uniformly like a regular round bulb does.)
and too late to re-tool and re-legislate for
> incandescents), someone will release the latest shocking "scientific"
> studies to start a HUGE environmental panic over the mercury being
> "released into the environment" from those bulbs (manufacturing,
> breakage, discarding into landfills, yadda, yadda, yadda), and some
> marvelous saviour will be waiting in the wings to "fix" the problem with
> a solution that he just happens to have ready, and charge us huge bucks
> in the process.
> Anybody want to take bets on this?
Google a bit, extreme environuts are ALREADY whining about CFLs,
although it amuses me how conflicted and angsty they seem to be over it.
From: Steve on 11 Nov 2009 11:25
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Unfortunately GE gave up their research into high-efficiency
Damn. I didn't know GE had bailed on that... too bad.
I think Phillips is still working on theirs, though,
> both the quartz-capsule HIRs inside a standard bulb envelope and
> exotic filament treaatments.
Actually I've seen a few Philips products already on the market. ie.,
their 45W PAR20 that matches 55W conventional incandescent PAR20 in
From: Steve on 11 Nov 2009 11:29
> I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was that
> GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams (surface
> treatment). Nitride is super hard, but once it wore thru that layer,
> the cams wore like butter. I did have to replace a cam in a 1980 GM
> vehicle at about the mileage that "they" said was typical of the wearout.
OK, I'm a little beyond my depth of knowledge here, but AFAIK *ALL*
flat-tappet cams have to be hardened (usually nitrided or some other
surface process) after the cam lobes are ground on the blank. Too much
material has to be removed when the lobes are ground to shape to use a
pre-grind hardening process- all the hardening would be removed except
on the very tip of the lobe and it would get undercut very quickly. I'm
sure that the quality and thickness of the hardening can vary, though.
In addition GM (Chevrolet division engines in particular) up through the
end of factory flat-tappet cams had comparatively high cam wear because
they used a smaller diameter lifter than Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and (I
think) some of the other GM divisions like Oldsmobile and Cadillac.
From: hls on 11 Nov 2009 13:04
"Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
> hls wrote:
>> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
>>> It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort
>>> went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I
>>> guess thats gratitude for you.... :-(
>> I think you are right in a sense. There is no gratitude. Did we not see
>> millenium coming for the entire history of modern computing???
> But, much as the designers of the 1957 BelAir and 1968 Roadrunner didn't
> expect those vehicles to remain hugely popular in 2009 and didn't design
> them for that kind of lifespan and maintainability, software developers in
> 1988 didn't REALLY expect their code snippets (or hell, whole programs!)
> to still be running in 1999/2000.
Strange.. that would be only 12 years, and the millenium change would have
been rather obvious, I think, especially in light of all the importance that
given to it at the last moment.