The insane progress nobody is talking about

[Christian Weisgerber]

People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.

I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.

Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.

From a 20th century point of view, those figures are totally insane.
When cheap LED lamps became common a few years ago, I thought that
was the end of the line, but even LED lamps have made significant
further progress in beam angle, energy efficiency, and lifetime
within just the last few years. Anybody who is hoarding lamps for
use in a few years will be sitting on obsolete technology in no
time. Buy today, weep next year. Between the crazy pace of progress
and the ever absurder lifetimes, keeping spares around no longer
makes sense.

It is utterly stunning progress.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

I have been replacing LED bulbs at a much higher rate than that for one
particular fixture. They aren't lasting even 10 thousand hours (why that
is happening, I have no idea - if the fixture was wired up wrong, the
incandescent bulbs I had been using wouldn't had lasted as long as they
did).

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Robert Woodward
I have been replacing LED bulbs at a much higher rate than that for one
particular fixture. They aren't lasting even 10 thousand hours (why that
is happening, I have no idea - if the fixture was wired up wrong, the
incandescent bulbs I had been using wouldn't had lasted as long as they
did).

They aren't designed to last very long, that's the problem. The typical
cheap American ones fail more frequently than long-life incandescents.

But there's no reason you can't make more expensive ones with much longer
life, like the ones required for use in Dubai. The problem is that people
don't want to pay more money for a better product unless they are forced to
do so.
--scott

[John Savard]

Post by Scott Dorsey
The problem is that people
don't want to pay more money for a better product unless they are forced to
do so.

Perhaps because they've learned, by long and bitter experience, that
paying more for a product doesn't guarantee that it will be of better
quality, so, unless they have definite knowledge that one product is
of superior quality, the safest way to avoid wasting money is to buy
the cheapest?

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:23:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard

Post by Scott Dorsey
The problem is that people
don't want to pay more money for a better product unless they are forced to
do so.

Perhaps because they've learned, by long and bitter experience, that
paying more for a product doesn't guarantee that it will be of better
quality, so, unless they have definite knowledge that one product is
of superior quality, the safest way to avoid wasting money is to buy
the cheapest?

Or they realize that the promised savings will never be recovered,
except in the "you would have paid more with the others" sense. This,
of course, is why I buy them so that I won't have to change them as
often. Convenience outweighs cost, at least for me, at least to some
extent.

Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

It is the difference between "amelioration" and "solution".

[John Savard]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.

The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)

This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.

It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

John Savard

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.

Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any. Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any. Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.

It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.

It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any. Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.

I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.

But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any. Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem. Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem. Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

That's relatively recent post WWII behavior, however. If it is
truly unsustainable behavior, it must change sometime.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem. Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

That's relatively recent post WWII behavior, however. If it is
truly unsustainable behavior, it must change sometime.

Hence the zoning changes for really large apartment buildings
(including some affordable housing) and the efforts to discourage car
useage.

Although Seattle hasn't yet reached the point of simply declaring the
entire downtown a "car-free" (ie, bus and pedestrian) zone.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any.  Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem.  Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

My case is a clear no go - there's a commuter rail station about a
mile away, but the Boston commuter system as designed with the
assumption that everyone wanted to go to the city center - my last work
place was about 8 miles out, but NW of town, while I live W of town.

I'd have to literally go all the way into central Boston to catch a
subway out to where I could pick up an outward bound bus for the
rest of the trip

Adding a lot of busses on circumfrential routes would help a lot,
but seems beyond the imagination of the MBTA.

I lived in Manhattan for 10 years without a car, without a problem.

When I go down to visit, I still tend to park for the duration and
take PT around the island if the weather is half decent - parking
is a huge time sink.

pt

[James Nicoll]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any.  Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem.  Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

My case is a clear no go - there's a commuter rail station about a
mile away, but the Boston commuter system as designed with the
assumption that everyone wanted to go to the city center - my last work
place was about 8 miles out, but NW of town, while I live W of town.

The Kitchener-Waterloo variant is that, having finally completed the
light rail project, the entire bus route system was redrawn with the
LRT playing a key role in north-south journeys. Where possible, bus
routes cross the LRT and it's supposed to be easy to transfer from
one to the other.

It used to be that if I wanted to get from where I live to where I
work, I could walk a kilometre, hop on an 8, and 40 minutes later
I would be at work. Now I need to make at least one transfer so
I have to plan on just missing the second vehicle, so add the
interval between successive trains or buses to the trip time.
It is also not a bad idea to assume at least one idiot will drive
into the side of the train during the trip*.

The changes also trippled the distance I have to walk from the
closest stop to work. Which is fine for me as I walk quickly
and don't easily get tired but isn't much fun for people for
whom walking is onerous.

Fortuitously, parking at UWaterloo is nightmarish.

* Mostly this seems to be people underestimating how fast the
LRT is bearing down on the crossing they want to drive across,
but I did see one driver reading his phone on the way through
an intersection.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:54:56 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any.  Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem.  Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

My case is a clear no go - there's a commuter rail station about a
mile away, but the Boston commuter system as designed with the
assumption that everyone wanted to go to the city center - my last work
place was about 8 miles out, but NW of town, while I live W of town.

A lot of cities seem to do that. And not just with commuter rail.

Most bus routes in Seattle used to go to the city center (N-S, but
routed to the center). Actually, most probably still do, but a few
have always run E-W, and some of the N-S routes appear to be ending at
the nearest light rail station.

I suppose that the idea was to help people get to the downtown
shopping area easily. Of course, Seattle used electric trolleys and so
found it useful to run the buses from one turnaround (at the far end
of one line) through the center and then (with a new route number) out
to the other turnaround. This may or may not affect some forms of
light rail. So there were technical factors as well.

Chicago, in the early 1970s, was something of an exception: N-S buses
ran straight N-S and E-W busses ran straight E-W without worrying
about where the city center was. The subway, of course, was based on
The Loop, which was -- downtown.

Seattle built an electric trolley some time ago that connects the
downtown with an area called South Lake Union (and it is, indeed, just
south of Lake Union). The use of the original name "South Lake Union
Trolley" was discouraged about two seconds after everyone figured out
what the initials spelled.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Cryptoengineer
My case is a clear no go - there's a commuter rail station about a
mile away, but the Boston commuter system as designed with the
assumption that everyone wanted to go to the city center - my last work
place was about 8 miles out, but NW of town, while I live W of town.

Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center. In the case of Boston the commuter rail is
actually a lot better than the subway, but the subway is a major problem.
In the case of DC there is talk about adding some rings in the future
and there is a good chance of the purple line happening but it's really
too little and too late.
--scott

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.

Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

-GAWollman
(who as you can tell is quite frosty about this)

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.

This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

[James Nicoll]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

[Robert Woodward]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

James, you are overlookng the Republicans who DON'T make the national
news.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

James, you are overlookng the Republicans who DON'T make the national
news.

There aren't any of those anymore either because they make national news
for being targeted by the MAGA party for not bending the knee and
kissing Emperor Trump's ring.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by James Nicoll
There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

James, you are overlookng the Republicans who DON'T make the national
news.

There are fewer and fewer of those, sadly. Some of them have ceased to be
Republicans, while others seem to have gone insane in the past decade.

Our local representative, Rob Whittman, was a reasonable conservative who
advocated just policies that benefitted his constituents for a couple decades.

Unfortunately, in the last decade or so, he has taken to advocating whatever
Donald Trump is advocating, and since that changes on a regular basis and
is often contradictory, he has taken to some unusual contortions to explain
them.
--scott

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by James Nicoll
There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

James, you are overlookng the Republicans who DON'T make the national
news.

There are fewer and fewer of those, sadly. Some of them have ceased to be
Republicans, while others seem to have gone insane in the past decade.
Our local representative, Rob Whittman, was a reasonable conservative who
advocated just policies that benefitted his constituents for a couple decades.
Unfortunately, in the last decade or so, he has taken to advocating whatever
Donald Trump is advocating, and since that changes on a regular basis and
is often contradictory, he has taken to some unusual contortions to explain
them.

If he's actually trying to explain them then there just might be some
tiny remnant of a human trapped in that body.

[Paul S Person]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

That's unduly pessimistic.

They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.

I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

But perhaps that will change.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.
--scott

[William Hyde]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.
--scott

A friend of mine was the treasurer of the Republican party for a county
in Virginia. He left that post when the local party voted to nominate
Oliver North for the Senate, and became much less active as a republican
in the following years.

He may yet be a registered republican, though. Not being familiar with
this part of the American system I don't know whether such things lapse
with time.

William Hyde

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out.  We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values.  One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation.  So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.
--scott

A friend of mine was the treasurer of the Republican party for a county
in Virginia.  He left that post when the local party voted to nominate
Oliver North for the Senate, and became much less active as a republican
in the following years.
He may yet be a registered republican, though.  Not being familiar with
this part of  the American system I don't know whether such things lapse
with time.

That doesn't lapse as far a voter registration is concerned. He would
have to change his party affiliation on a form.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 16:37:29 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.
--scott

A friend of mine was the treasurer of the Republican party for a county
in Virginia. He left that post when the local party voted to nominate
Oliver North for the Senate, and became much less active as a republican
in the following years.

Running in an area filled with retired high-ranking military officers,
none of whom would /ever/ have lied to Congress and took his doing so
as a betrayal of their service. Didn't work.

The last I heard of him, he was being used by a local State legislator
(with what passed then for a very conservative attitude, although she
would probably be considered nearly sane today) as an endorser. She
lost her bid for higher office (House of Representative, I think, or
possibly Senator). She probably would have anyway, but I doubt being
endorsed by a high-ranking military officer famous for lying to
Congress helped as much as she hoped.

Still, IIRC, he /did/ have enough sense to call out the NRA
leadership, possibly resulting in their legal problems. Although why
the NRA didn't just leave New York and re-incorporate in Texas, where
I am sure they would be very welcome, I have no idea.

Post by William Hyde
He may yet be a registered republican, though. Not being familiar with
this part of the American system I don't know whether such things lapse
with time.

My mother received fund-raising letters from the RNC for at least
three years after she died.

So the registration may have lapsed, but I suspect the fund-raising
letters continued.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.

Our wide-open primary (anybody can claim any party they want to), at
least some time back, included not just "Republican", but "Old
Republican" (ie, pre-Trump), "G.O.P" (also non-Trump) and so on. The
actual political parties have nothing to say about this (in the
primary).

They also regularly include people who believe that "Mayor of Seattle"
means that they set National policy on various issues. I don't vote
for such persons, as they clearly have no idea what the job they are
running for is, and so are unlikely to be good at it.

As to de-facto school segregation: "white flight" (from the Public
Schools) has been for decades and continues to be a well-known
phenomenon. A lot of the attacks on Public Schools are because they
let "them" in and, worse, mix "them" with "us".

I wonder if the groups running the "white flight" schools realize
that, if a certain Supreme Court justice gets his way, Brown v BoE
will fall and their entire reason for existing will vanish in puff of
legaleeze.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.

Our wide-open primary (anybody can claim any party they want to), at
least some time back, included not just "Republican", but "Old
Republican" (ie, pre-Trump), "G.O.P" (also non-Trump) and so on. The
actual political parties have nothing to say about this (in the
primary).
They also regularly include people who believe that "Mayor of Seattle"
means that they set National policy on various issues. I don't vote
for such persons, as they clearly have no idea what the job they are
running for is, and so are unlikely to be good at it.
As to de-facto school segregation: "white flight" (from the Public
Schools) has been for decades and continues to be a well-known
phenomenon. A lot of the attacks on Public Schools are because they
let "them" in and, worse, mix "them" with "us".
I wonder if the groups running the "white flight" schools realize
that, if a certain Supreme Court justice gets his way, Brown v BoE
will fall and their entire reason for existing will vanish in puff of
legaleeze.

Why would they need to continue once they've won?

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:02:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.

Our wide-open primary (anybody can claim any party they want to), at
least some time back, included not just "Republican", but "Old
Republican" (ie, pre-Trump), "G.O.P" (also non-Trump) and so on. The
actual political parties have nothing to say about this (in the
primary).
They also regularly include people who believe that "Mayor of Seattle"
means that they set National policy on various issues. I don't vote
for such persons, as they clearly have no idea what the job they are
running for is, and so are unlikely to be good at it.
As to de-facto school segregation: "white flight" (from the Public
Schools) has been for decades and continues to be a well-known
phenomenon. A lot of the attacks on Public Schools are because they
let "them" in and, worse, mix "them" with "us".
I wonder if the groups running the "white flight" schools realize
that, if a certain Supreme Court justice gets his way, Brown v BoE
will fall and their entire reason for existing will vanish in puff of
legaleeze.

Why would they need to continue once they've won?

But do they /want/ to win? Wouldn't they rather keep raking in the
bucks from racist parents?

If the latter is the case, they need to see if they can shovel enough
money into his pockets to change his tune. This won't be easy; they'll
be competing with a very rich man who already appears to own him.

And some people think slavery is dead ...

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 10:02:21 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.=20

That's unduly pessimistic.
They are just local and so unknown to outsiders.
I will, however, concede that they are getting harder to find.

Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.

Our wide-open primary (anybody can claim any party they want to), at
least some time back, included not just "Republican", but "Old
Republican" (ie, pre-Trump), "G.O.P" (also non-Trump) and so on. The
actual political parties have nothing to say about this (in the
primary).
They also regularly include people who believe that "Mayor of Seattle"
means that they set National policy on various issues. I don't vote
for such persons, as they clearly have no idea what the job they are
running for is, and so are unlikely to be good at it.
As to de-facto school segregation: "white flight" (from the Public
Schools) has been for decades and continues to be a well-known
phenomenon. A lot of the attacks on Public Schools are because they
let "them" in and, worse, mix "them" with "us".
I wonder if the groups running the "white flight" schools realize
that, if a certain Supreme Court justice gets his way, Brown v BoE
will fall and their entire reason for existing will vanish in puff of
legaleeze.

Why would they need to continue once they've won?

But do they /want/ to win? Wouldn't they rather keep raking in the
bucks from racist parents?

Who said anything about not lying anymore once they've won?

Post by Paul S Person
If the latter is the case, they need to see if they can shovel enough
money into his pockets to change his tune. This won't be easy; they'll
be competing with a very rich man who already appears to own him.
And some people think slavery is dead ...

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Again true a decade ago, but at least in our local party the sane people
are being driven out. We have folks running for city council who are
obsessed with stopping abortion and promoting what they claim to be
Christian values. One of the big deals is promotion of school vouchers,
which are likely of real benefit in some urban areas but which here are
primarily used to fund de-facto school segregation. So many of the
small-government pro-business Republicans are no longer active in the
local party.

So why are said persons running for municipal office? Surely they know
abortion and related issues aren't dealt with by city coucil?

(And if they don't I have severe doubt in their mental acuity which to
my mind is #1 qualification for office even if I fundamentally
disagree with their beliefs or politicies)

[Titus G]

On 29/06/24 03:38, James Nicoll wrote:
(Subject The insane progress nobody is talking about)
snip

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

Corruption is now legal in the US after the ruling authored by Kavanaugh
in Snyder v United States last week.
( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf )

In summary a bribe is organised and paid prior to some desired behaviour
so the court determined that any post-facto payments are simply
gratuities and therefore not illegal.
A small town mayor, Snyder, asked for $13,000 from a company AFTER it
was awarded a town contract, was convicted but now absolved by the
Supreme Court of which some members have received substantial benefits
from billionaire friends whose interests they protect and assist being
similar to their own.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G
(Subject The insane progress nobody is talking about)
snip

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

There are no sane Republicans, nor uncorrupt.

Corruption is now legal in the US after the ruling authored by Kavanaugh
in Snyder v United States last week.
( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf )
In summary a bribe is organised and paid prior to some desired behaviour
so the court determined that any post-facto payments are simply
gratuities and therefore not illegal.

Well, a bribe /is/ something that is paid (or at least promised)
first.

Post by Titus G
A small town mayor, Snyder, asked for $13,000 from a company AFTER it
was awarded a town contract, was convicted but now absolved by the
Supreme Court of which some members have received substantial benefits
from billionaire friends whose interests they protect and assist being
similar to their own.

This sounds more like extortion. Or a kick-back.

Perhaps the prosecutor should have paid more attention to what a
"bribe" is in the context of our legal tradition. And found a charge
that actually fit the case. And, if appropriate, instructed the Grand
Jury properly. Sloppiness really isn't a positive character trait.

I am taking it for granted here that no agreement reached prior to the
award of the contract.

As to the dubious morals of some Supreme Court members:

if the Supremes can do it, the Mayor can do it.

Corruption starts from the top.

[Garrett Wollman]

[MBTA troubles]
Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

We had eight years of Charlie Baker, the exact sort of person usually
described as "a sane Republican"[1] and he made things worse, not better.
Of course the State Auditor is a separate (elected) position and I
don't know what they were auditing. (Probably the lottery. Auditors
love to audit the lottery, because there's almost always some theft
they can uncover, just by the nature of the beast.)

-GAWollman

[1] Business background, tall, good hair, wears a suit well.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.

There are only two or three contractors bidding on most capital
projects, because they are so high-value and simultaneously both over-
and under-specified, such that only the largest contractors can
perform them. If anyone's brother-in-law is getting the business, it
would be a sub-sub-contractor, not the prime. (There's a weird thing
in state procurement law that requires the prime contractor to sub out
lots of business from a list of qualified subs provided by the state,
so that's not as implausible as it sounds.)

-GAWollman

[Cryptoengineer]

s

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.

There are only two or three contractors bidding on most capital
projects, because they are so high-value and simultaneously both over-
and under-specified, such that only the largest contractors can
perform them. If anyone's brother-in-law is getting the business, it
would be a sub-sub-contractor, not the prime. (There's a weird thing
in state procurement law that requires the prime contractor to sub out
lots of business from a list of qualified subs provided by the state,
so that's not as implausible as it sounds.)
-GAWollman

Slightly Off topic, but if Boston transport and infra structure is
of interest, WGBH recently did a really good, in depth podcast series
about how the Big Dig got built, Starting with stopping the Boston
Artery from being much much worse.

The politics, both local and Federal are covered, as well as the
actual construction. I found it very meaty listening.

https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig

Interestingly, their end message is that it may now be impossible
to do more such projects, due to the amount of public reviews,
environmental impact statements, etc.

pt

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible. Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel. That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line. (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

A sane republican 60 years ago, maybe, when the party was actually
focused on real world cost cutting. But the modern Republican Party is
all about whittling down if not outright dismantling the government and
giving money to the 1%ers.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible.  Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel.  That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line.  (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

A sane republican 60 years ago, maybe, when the party was actually
focused on real world cost cutting.  But the modern Republican Party is
all about whittling down if not outright dismantling the government and
giving money to the 1%ers.

Funny, most of the 1%ers are Democrats now. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,
Joe Biden, Barack Obama, any Kennedy, Hunter Biden, etc, etc, etc.

Lynn

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible.  Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel.  That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line.  (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

A sane republican 60 years ago, maybe, when the party was actually
focused on real world cost cutting.  But the modern Republican Party
is all about whittling down if not outright dismantling the government
and giving money to the 1%ers.

Funny, most of the 1%ers are Democrats now.

You are wrong. Most of the 1%ers stay OUT of the public eye.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),
Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

A sane republican 60 years ago, maybe, when the party was actually
focused on real world cost cutting.  But the modern Republican Party
is all about whittling down if not outright dismantling the government
and giving money to the 1%ers.

Funny, most of the 1%ers are Democrats now.

You are wrong. Most of the 1%ers stay OUT of the public eye.

Can you please supply citations/evidence for your somewhat outdated views?

In terms of political contributions, the Democrats pulled even with
Republicans in 2008, and by now are substantially ahead, especially
in large contributions. They are the party of the rich now
(especially the technical field rich.)

Eg, in 2020, Trump had 133 billionare donors, giving $460 million.
Biden had 230 billionare donors, giving $692 million.
https://www.forbes.com/trump-biden-2020-election-donations/

Overall, Biden outraised Trump by about 50% (a huge amount) in 2020.
https://issueone.org/articles/12-numbers-to-know-about-the-money-in-the-2020-presidential-election/

Chris

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 21:54:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 03:59:22 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.

Except that's not true for Boston: it's in the suburbs where the real
commercial real estate crash has taken place, lots of empty space in
office parks in the 495 belt because it's just too inconvenient,
especially for RE that was historically dominated by industries that
are still largely work-from-home compatible.  Kendall, Longwood, the
Back Bay, and the Seaport are all well leased and have most of the
wet-lab space beloved of our principal industry.
Now it would be great if the MBTA's construction costs weren't insane
and they were capable of doing design and engineering work in-house so
they weren't hiring outside contractors for the simplest projects.
Then maybe they could actually build the North-South Rail Link at
an internationally competitive price rather than trying to give New
York and London a run for the Guinness world record for most expensive
mile of tunnel.  That might actually make some of those more suburban
office locations worthwhile, if they're reasonably close to a
commuter-rail line.  (Many of them still aren't, but could be if the
MBTA had the slightest amount of strategy.)

Perhaps a thorough audit focused on where the money is going (ie, how
many brothers-in-law of various officials are getting the contracts)
would help.
This is /exactly/ the sort of task a sane Republican would seem to be
ideal for.

A sane republican 60 years ago, maybe, when the party was actually
focused on real world cost cutting.  But the modern Republican Party
is all about whittling down if not outright dismantling the government
and giving money to the 1%ers.

Funny, most of the 1%ers are Democrats now.

You are wrong. Most of the 1%ers stay OUT of the public eye.

Until they are outed, of course.

Watch for more to be outed in the future, if things get /really/
nasty.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Cryptoengineer
My case is a clear no go - there's a commuter rail station about a
mile away, but the Boston commuter system as designed with the
assumption that everyone wanted to go to the city center - my last work
place was about 8 miles out, but NW of town, while I live W of town.

Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center. In the case of Boston the commuter rail is
actually a lot better than the subway, but the subway is a major problem.
In the case of DC there is talk about adding some rings in the future
and there is a good chance of the purple line happening but it's really
too little and too late.
--scott

So does Vancouver - I had to go to the pharmacy yesterday (I'm
temporarily unable to drive due to recent eye surgery) and had to bus
it and had to take 2 buses - both of which eventually went or had come
from downtown simply to go what is generally a 10-15 minute drive for
me. Given the outside temperature (high 80s / low 90s) I was not
amused at having a 15-20 minute wait at my transfer point (which was
far away from the straight line path from home to pharmacy)

It was unnecessarily getting up from the bus stop and walking around
constantly simply to get some air flow....

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:23:16 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:42:48 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any. Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.

And so it should be.
I haven't driven since 1983. I haven't owned a car since 1982, and
that was in West Germany. I really like public transit.
But someone with the commute you describe cannot be expected to use
it. And other situations exist, such as weekly grocery shopping for a
large family, or having to transport entire 12-year-old soccer teams
around.

And that's kind of the problem. Our whole society is built around
families having, AND USING, cars.

In the 'burbs, sure.

And people with cars are adept at finding places that only a car can
get to. I one met a young woman who lived across Lake Washington
(maybe Kirkland or Bellevue), attended the UW campus in NE Seattle,
and worked in (IIRC) Ballard (could have been West Seattle). Her
commutes were 100% dependent on having her car in working order at all
times.

Then again, as others have documented here, it is entirely possible to
select a home and a job that work with public transit only to have the
public transit disappear and leave only an automobile as an option for
commuting. This is a problem for everyone, really.

[BillGill]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Robert Woodward
I have been replacing LED bulbs at a much higher rate than that for one
particular fixture. They aren't lasting even 10 thousand hours (why that
is happening, I have no idea - if the fixture was wired up wrong, the
incandescent bulbs I had been using wouldn't had lasted as long as they
did).

They aren't designed to last very long, that's the problem. The typical
cheap American ones fail more frequently than long-life incandescents.
But there's no reason you can't make more expensive ones with much longer
life, like the ones required for use in Dubai. The problem is that people
don't want to pay more money for a better product unless they are forced to
do so.
--scott

I found out that a lot of the lower priced store brands don't
last as long as they should. I have given up buying them,
and buying name brands instead. For example I don't buy LED
bulbs at Walmart. I go to someplace that offers a choice.

Bill

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by BillGill

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Robert Woodward
I have been replacing LED bulbs at a much higher rate than that for one
particular fixture. They aren't lasting even 10 thousand hours (why that
is happening, I have no idea - if the fixture was wired up wrong, the
incandescent bulbs I had been using wouldn't had lasted as long as they
did).

They aren't designed to last very long, that's the problem. The typical
cheap American ones fail more frequently than long-life incandescents.
But there's no reason you can't make more expensive ones with much longer
life, like the ones required for use in Dubai. The problem is that people
don't want to pay more money for a better product unless they are forced to
do so.
--scott

I found out that a lot of the lower priced store brands don't
last as long as they should. I have given up buying them,
and buying name brands instead. For example I don't buy LED
bulbs at Walmart. I go to someplace that offers a choice.
Bill

Incandescants have definitely gotten worse once you can only buy the
off brands. I see a lot of base/neck separation now, and I never saw
that before.

[Random]

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

I have been replacing LED bulbs at a much higher rate than that for one
particular fixture. They aren't lasting even 10 thousand hours (why that
is happening, I have no idea - if the fixture was wired up wrong, the
incandescent bulbs I had been using wouldn't had lasted as long as they
did).

The short answer, is the cheap power conversion electronics in the base of
most LED bulbs. An LED is a direct current devise, so there is a set of
electronics in the base of the bulb to convert the AC to DC.

A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

Random

[Paul S Person]

Post by Random

Post by Robert Woodward

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

I have been replacing LED bulbs at a much higher rate than that for one
particular fixture. They aren't lasting even 10 thousand hours (why that
is happening, I have no idea - if the fixture was wired up wrong, the
incandescent bulbs I had been using wouldn't had lasted as long as they
did).

The short answer, is the cheap power conversion electronics in the base of
most LED bulbs. An LED is a direct current devise, so there is a set of
electronics in the base of the bulb to convert the AC to DC.
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

Of course, pretty much any electric power system is likely to have
/some/ problems, from time to time.

I once was in a situation where every time the Refrigerator (in
another room, but on the same circuit) powered up, the computer
rebooted. This gets very old very fast, but illustrates that even your
home wiring can misbehave and affect what you have plugged in.

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Paul S Person
I once was in a situation where every time the Refrigerator (in
another room, but on the same circuit) powered up, the computer
rebooted. This gets very old very fast, but illustrates that even your
home wiring can misbehave and affect what you have plugged in.

Your very old fridge, rated at 750 watts, draws around 1500 watts to
start, maybe more and for longer if in deteriorating condition.
Thus unknown the duration and size of the voltage drop.

My attention was called to this when, over a decade ago, our 40
y.o. fridge worked fine until I tried to run it on a 1500 watt genset
after a storm when the main gen set had failed. It bogged the
generator down severly when starting.

[Paul S Person]

On 21 Jun 2024 04:20:14 -0300, Mike Spencer

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Paul S Person
I once was in a situation where every time the Refrigerator (in
another room, but on the same circuit) powered up, the computer
rebooted. This gets very old very fast, but illustrates that even your
home wiring can misbehave and affect what you have plugged in.

Your very old fridge, rated at 750 watts, draws around 1500 watts to
start, maybe more and for longer if in deteriorating condition.
Thus unknown the duration and size of the voltage drop.

At the time, it was about 11 years old -- but that was in 1983, so I
have no doubt you are right.

It has been replaced with a different model. And the computers are on
a different circuit.

Post by Mike Spencer
My attention was called to this when, over a decade ago, our 40
y.o. fridge worked fine until I tried to run it on a 1500 watt genset
after a storm when the main gen set had failed. It bogged the
generator down severly when starting.

When we re-roofed in 2001, the roofers plugged into the nice outdoor
plug our freezer was plugged into. All went well until the freezer
(late in the week) started up and blew the circuit breaker. And by
"blew" I mean "destroyed": it had to be replaced.

That roof nearing the end of its life (per our roof guy, who should
know), we did a re-roofing at the start of the month. They used the
same outlet, but the freezer had been defrosted and disconnected when
my co-owner/brother moved out to be nearer his new job. There were no
problems.

Stuff happens. Adaptation is a tool that can be used for more that
just producing new species.

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Random
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.

If frequency sat that low for a 24 hour period (which it doesn't; frequency error
regularly crosses zero), it would be a loss of 40 seconds in a day.

As a matter of fact, a few years back, the EI had an ongoing problem with frequency
being high: 3 mHz fast as a sustained average over several years. This was considered
a significant enough issue to require an investigation[2].

If uncorrected, it would have caused clocks to gain over 4 seconds per day. This
led to regularly implementing Time Error Correction. In this case, that meant a
coordinated (across the EI) reduction in generation to reduce frequency until the
time error crossed zero again.

Four seconds error per day is considered a problem. If you live in North America,
you can count[3] on your analog clock.


[1] <https://www.nerc.com/comm/OC/RS%20Landing%20Page%20DL/Frequency%20Response%20Standard%20Resources/2020_FRAA_Draft_Report_Final_.pdf>, Table 1.1.
[2] <https://www.nerc.com/comm/OC/RS_Related_Resources/Persistent_High_Frequency_in_the_Eastern_Interconnection_-_FINAL_020921.pdf>
[3] Sorry!

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:56:17 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Random
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.
If frequency sat that low for a 24 hour period (which it doesn't; frequency error
regularly crosses zero), it would be a loss of 40 seconds in a day.
As a matter of fact, a few years back, the EI had an ongoing problem with frequency
being high: 3 mHz fast as a sustained average over several years. This was considered
a significant enough issue to require an investigation[2].
If uncorrected, it would have caused clocks to gain over 4 seconds per day. This
led to regularly implementing Time Error Correction. In this case, that meant a
coordinated (across the EI) reduction in generation to reduce frequency until the
time error crossed zero again.
Four seconds error per day is considered a problem. If you live in North America,
you can count[3] on your analog clock.

Three things:

-- I was talking about a timer, not a clock. In particular, a timer
controlling our porch light, when went wonky after about 10 years. It
could, of course, have simply aged out, or my switch to CFLs may have
been responsible, who can say? And the timer was put in in the 90s.
Still works fine as manual switch, though.

-- My memory is that our City Light was reducing the CPS deliberately
-- or allowing it to fluctuate as it chose -- for some reason.

-- Seattle is not in the Eastern Interconnection. Not that I think
whatever Interconnection it /is/ in does any different than the EI.

Summary:
-- wrong device
-- possible misapplication of modern conditions to the past
-- wrong part of country

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:56:17 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Random
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.
If frequency sat that low for a 24 hour period (which it doesn't; frequency error
regularly crosses zero), it would be a loss of 40 seconds in a day.
As a matter of fact, a few years back, the EI had an ongoing problem with frequency
being high: 3 mHz fast as a sustained average over several years. This was considered
a significant enough issue to require an investigation[2].
If uncorrected, it would have caused clocks to gain over 4 seconds per day. This
led to regularly implementing Time Error Correction. In this case, that meant a
coordinated (across the EI) reduction in generation to reduce frequency until the
time error crossed zero again.
Four seconds error per day is considered a problem. If you live in North America,
you can count[3] on your analog clock.

-- I was talking about a timer, not a clock. In particular, a timer
controlling our porch light, when went wonky after about 10 years. It
could, of course, have simply aged out, or my switch to CFLs may have
been responsible, who can say? And the timer was put in in the 90s.
Still works fine as manual switch, though.

Functionally, there is no difference between a timer that works by
counting cycles and a clock that does the same. The laws of physics
are uninterested in what you call it. If it integrates frequency,
it's a clock.

Post by Paul S Person
-- My memory is that our City Light was reducing the CPS deliberately
-- or allowing it to fluctuate as it chose -- for some reason.

Seattle City Light can not let their frequency vary independently, unless
they were to disconnect from the WI, which would mean that they could no
longer buy or sell energy. It would also mean that they would need to
keep more generators running than would be needed for local consumption,
just to meet spinning reserve requirements.

Post by Paul S Person
-- Seattle is not in the Eastern Interconnection. Not that I think
whatever Interconnection it /is/ in does any different than the EI.

That'd be the Western Interconnection (WI), run by the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC). (It's often referred to as "WECC", since
that's the only Regional Entity for the WI.

Recent data[1] show that their worst performance was 2020 Q3,
when they had a whopping 20+ minutes of absolute frequency error
(actual versus scheduled) outside of 68 mHz.

[1] <https://www.wecc.org/PerformanceAnalysis/Pages/ReliabilityIndicatorDashboard.aspx?6#Indicator6%3aTrendininterconnectionfrequencyresponseandperformance>

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:20:52 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:56:17 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Random
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.
If frequency sat that low for a 24 hour period (which it doesn't; frequency error
regularly crosses zero), it would be a loss of 40 seconds in a day.
As a matter of fact, a few years back, the EI had an ongoing problem with frequency
being high: 3 mHz fast as a sustained average over several years. This was considered
a significant enough issue to require an investigation[2].
If uncorrected, it would have caused clocks to gain over 4 seconds per day. This
led to regularly implementing Time Error Correction. In this case, that meant a
coordinated (across the EI) reduction in generation to reduce frequency until the
time error crossed zero again.
Four seconds error per day is considered a problem. If you live in North America,
you can count[3] on your analog clock.

-- I was talking about a timer, not a clock. In particular, a timer
controlling our porch light, when went wonky after about 10 years. It
could, of course, have simply aged out, or my switch to CFLs may have
been responsible, who can say? And the timer was put in in the 90s.
Still works fine as manual switch, though.

Functionally, there is no difference between a timer that works by
counting cycles and a clock that does the same. The laws of physics
are uninterested in what you call it. If it integrates frequency,
it's a clock.

Post by Paul S Person
-- My memory is that our City Light was reducing the CPS deliberately
-- or allowing it to fluctuate as it chose -- for some reason.

Seattle City Light can not let their frequency vary independently, unless
they were to disconnect from the WI, which would mean that they could no
longer buy or sell energy. It would also mean that they would need to
keep more generators running than would be needed for local consumption,
just to meet spinning reserve requirements.

I can only report what I remember from what I read at the time.
Possibly in a newpaper, possibly from their newsletter (enclosed with
the paper bill).

And I don't recall the issue of it's being City Light /only/ that was
doing it or even that City Light was doing on it's own initiative.

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
-- Seattle is not in the Eastern Interconnection. Not that I think
whatever Interconnection it /is/ in does any different than the EI.

That'd be the Western Interconnection (WI), run by the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC). (It's often referred to as "WECC", since
that's the only Regional Entity for the WI.
Recent data[1] show that their worst performance was 2020 Q3,
when they had a whopping 20+ minutes of absolute frequency error
(actual versus scheduled) outside of 68 mHz.

But not recent enough. It was installed by 1993. I was still working
when it went wonky, so that was before 2005.

Post by Michael F. Stemper
[1] <https://www.wecc.org/PerformanceAnalysis/Pages/ReliabilityIndicatorDashboard.aspx?6#Indicator6%3aTrendininterconnectionfrequencyresponseandperformance>

Well ... I'm not sure where "Northern Baja Mexico" is. "Baja
California" is known to exist, and, since it runs N-S, it presumably
has a northern part.

Bing found a
link<https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8bd1e50c6764bcc5JmltdHM9MTcxOTM2MDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zM2MzMDhjNi0wMDI3LTYwZDQtMWExMS0wNDk2MDE0YjYxMzAmaW5zaWQ9NTIxMg&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=33c308c6-0027-60d4-1a11-0496014b6130&psq=baja+mexico+vs+baja+california&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly90aGlua3JlYWxzdGF0ZS5jb20vd2hhdC1pcy10aGUtZGlmZmVyZW5jZS1iZXR3ZWVuLWJhamEtY2FsaWZvcm5pYS1hbmQtYmFqYS1tZXhpY28v&ntb=1>
but it produces a blank page, which is a pity because the text quoted
by Bing:

"Baja California and Baja Mexico refer to the peninsula that extends
from the southwestern portion of mainland Mexico. Located in the
northwestern part of Mexico, Baja California …"

which seems to promise an explanation and so is quite enticing!

Looking up WECC history on Bing produces:

"WECC has a long history of assuring reliability in the West that
began when it was originally formed in 1967 by 40 power systems, then
known as the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC). Thirty-five
years later in 2002, the WSCC became WECC when three regional
transmission associations merged."

raising the possibility of teething troubles affecting cycles at about
the right time.

But, as I said, the timer could simply have aged out or reacted badly
to having a CFL to control.

I should note that the /thermostat/ we use, old as it is, uses a
rechargeable battery for power -- and is wired in to the house wiring
so that the battery is always charged. Thus, it will not lose time in
a power outage and, if the power is back on when it flips to "Day",
will start the furnace if appropriate. The furnace, of course, will
not run without electricity, even though it burns oil for heat.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:04:09 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:56:17 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Random
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.
If frequency sat that low for a 24 hour period (which it doesn't; frequency error
regularly crosses zero), it would be a loss of 40 seconds in a day.
As a matter of fact, a few years back, the EI had an ongoing problem with frequency
being high: 3 mHz fast as a sustained average over several years. This was considered
a significant enough issue to require an investigation[2].
If uncorrected, it would have caused clocks to gain over 4 seconds per day. This
led to regularly implementing Time Error Correction. In this case, that meant a
coordinated (across the EI) reduction in generation to reduce frequency until the
time error crossed zero again.
Four seconds error per day is considered a problem. If you live in North America,
you can count[3] on your analog clock.

-- I was talking about a timer, not a clock. In particular, a timer
controlling our porch light, when went wonky after about 10 years. It
could, of course, have simply aged out, or my switch to CFLs may have
been responsible, who can say? And the timer was put in in the 90s.
Still works fine as manual switch, though.
-- My memory is that our City Light was reducing the CPS deliberately
-- or allowing it to fluctuate as it chose -- for some reason.
-- Seattle is not in the Eastern Interconnection. Not that I think
whatever Interconnection it /is/ in does any different than the EI.
-- wrong device
-- possible misapplication of modern conditions to the past
-- wrong part of country

In the 1990s, I'd expect your device to have
its own microprocessor clock,,but I suppose
you'd know.

This is an Intermatic Programmable Wall Switch EI341. It looks a lot
like this:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/116149597163?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1I9uzWWJSRfWjHKDBgPhM7Q98&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-213727-13078-0&mkcid=2&itemid=116149597163&targetid=4580634177211616&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=&poi=&campaignid=604202271&mkgroupid=1232553588462791&rlsatarget=pla-4580634177211616&abcId=9427713&merchantid=51291&msclkid=c8574f2cf4701b2941c129ae2126ea4c>
but has only one ON/OFF cycle.

To program it, you set the start time, move the slider to ON, and push
the button. This should cause the indicator to start blinking. You
then set the end time and push the button. The indicator is now a
solid red, indicating that the switch is "programmed".

The device pictured looks very much like my model, but it can store 24
ON/OFF pairs, while mine can only handle one. The documentation for
mine says nothing about a microprocessor clock.

It was sold to us and installed by an electrician (well, a company in
the business of providing electricians to homeowners to perform a
specific task). There is no telling when it was manufactured.

When the timer function is OFF, the push button works fine as a wall
switch. Well, except that you have to look outside to see if the light
is actually on or off, depending on what you wanted.

I should note that our even older furnace thermostat uses a 24-hour
clockface and little blue and red pins for programming. Mechanical
timers work quite well.

I think I heard that fluorescent and CFL lamps
do create a sort of anti-signal that confuses
an electricity meter - this may be not true at
all, but I can see it upsetting a clock, as well.
You could try LED.

It is true that the documentation requires a "Class P Protected
Ballast" for any fluorescent lamp controlled by it. As I noted, this
may or may not have been the cause of the problem.

I think I've got one CFL, bathroom, that won't
die. It's slightly annoying, as it's the type
that takes a while to be bright enough to read by.

I've had tubes do that, when they get old and slow. The CFL on the
front porch can take a while to get started when it is cold out but
it's not actually intended to be used outside.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:04:09 +0100, Robert Carnegie

I think I've got one CFL, bathroom, that won't
die. It's slightly annoying, as it's the type
that takes a while to be bright enough to read by.

I've had tubes do that, when they get old and slow. The CFL on the
front porch can take a while to get started when it is cold out but
it's not actually intended to be used outside.

I've found that slow start behavior to be beneficial in a bathroom
in the middle of the night.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:04:09 +0100, Robert Carnegie

I think I've got one CFL, bathroom, that won't
die. It's slightly annoying, as it's the type
that takes a while to be bright enough to read by.

I've had tubes do that, when they get old and slow. The CFL on the
front porch can take a while to get started when it is cold out but
it's not actually intended to be used outside.

I've found that slow start behavior to be beneficial in a bathroom
in the middle of the night.

Me too.

However, now I have a ceiling lamp that includes a nightlight socket
It has a 2 watt bulb. A bit brighter than a full moon.

Pt

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:04:09 +0100, Robert Carnegie

I think I've got one CFL, bathroom, that won't
die. It's slightly annoying, as it's the type
that takes a while to be bright enough to read by.

I've had tubes do that, when they get old and slow. The CFL on the
front porch can take a while to get started when it is cold out but
it's not actually intended to be used outside.

I've found that slow start behavior to be beneficial in a bathroom
in the middle of the night.

I start those visits by turning on the lights next to my bed [1], so
fluorescent tubes (well, the one that still works -- I suspect a
ballast problem [2]) that turn on at once are no problem.

That I feel the need to do this is an indication of how my night
vision has declined over the decades. But at least I don't bump into
the furniture!

[1] This is the one with two 60W incandescent bulbs in it. It isn't
used very often. I may never need the spare bulbs I still have in the
closet.

[2] Switching bulbs doesn't change which side lights up. Switching
starters (independently of the bulbs) doesn't change which one lights
up. That leaves the ballasts. This used to happen when it got cool and
then both would light when it got warm. But the last time it went
beyond "warm" to "hot" (90-100, which is hot for Seattle), it
apparently died for the last time. If the other ballast goes out I
will summon an electrician and see if the fixture can be adapted to
LED tubes. Given their age, I have my doubts.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:56:17 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Random
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.
If frequency sat that low for a 24 hour period (which it doesn't; frequency error
regularly crosses zero), it would be a loss of 40 seconds in a day.
As a matter of fact, a few years back, the EI had an ongoing problem with frequency
being high: 3 mHz fast as a sustained average over several years. This was considered
a significant enough issue to require an investigation[2].
If uncorrected, it would have caused clocks to gain over 4 seconds per day. This
led to regularly implementing Time Error Correction. In this case, that meant a
coordinated (across the EI) reduction in generation to reduce frequency until the
time error crossed zero again.
Four seconds error per day is considered a problem. If you live in North America,
you can count[3] on your analog clock.

-- I was talking about a timer, not a clock. In particular, a timer
controlling our porch light, when went wonky after about 10 years. It
could, of course, have simply aged out, or my switch to CFLs may have
been responsible, who can say? And the timer was put in in the 90s.
Still works fine as manual switch, though.
-- My memory is that our City Light was reducing the CPS deliberately
-- or allowing it to fluctuate as it chose -- for some reason.
-- Seattle is not in the Eastern Interconnection. Not that I think
whatever Interconnection it /is/ in does any different than the EI.
-- wrong device
-- possible misapplication of modern conditions to the past
-- wrong part of country

In the 1990s, I'd expect your device to have
its own microprocessor clock,,but I suppose
you'd know.

I think I heard that fluorescent and CFL lamps
do create a sort of anti-signal that confuses
an electricity meter - this may be not true at
all, but I can see it upsetting a clock, as well.
You could try LED.

I think I've got one CFL, bathroom, that won't
die. It's slightly annoying, as it's the type
that takes a while to be bright enough to read by.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
I've seen a similar claim about timers that actually count
cycles-per-second: if those vary then the timer misperforms.

This isn't really an issue in North America. According to NERC[1], frequency in
the Eastern Interconnection (EI) is above 59.972 Hz 95% of the time. This is
99.95% of nominal frequency, or an error of 28 mHz.

Unfortunately it used to be a huge problem for systems in North America that were
not on the grid, like film sets and music festivals running off generators. Also
lots of people on boats.

These days the increasing use of inverter generators instead of synchronous
types means that we can use Hammond organs at music festivals again and expect
them to stay on pitch.
--scott

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Random
The short answer, is the cheap power conversion electronics in the base of
most LED bulbs. An LED is a direct current devise, so there is a set of
electronics in the base of the bulb to convert the AC to DC.
A conventional bulb's filament is not sensitive to AC voltage fluctionations,
where the conversion electronics is. My guess is that your wiring to that
light is causing voltage dips and is stressing the electronics in the LED bulb
base.

The other direction is also possible: in North America, the nominal AC
power is 120 volts RMS -- it used to be 117, 115, and 110 in various
places, and the specification still allows for it to dip that low.
(In Japan, it's even lower, 100 volts.) But the specification *also*
allows the actual voltage to be significantly above 120, technically
as high as 132 V, and in some places it is common for utility power to
be "running hot" by design. Power at my home is typically 128 volts
during the low-load parts of the year. The power converter in an LED
bulb may not be designed to operate at the high end of its range all
of the time, and may dissipate more heat than it was designed to.

-GAWollman

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.
From a 20th century point of view, those figures are totally insane.
When cheap LED lamps became common a few years ago, I thought that
was the end of the line, but even LED lamps have made significant
further progress in beam angle, energy efficiency, and lifetime
within just the last few years. Anybody who is hoarding lamps for
use in a few years will be sitting on obsolete technology in no
time. Buy today, weep next year. Between the crazy pace of progress
and the ever absurder lifetimes, keeping spares around no longer
makes sense.
It is utterly stunning progress.

We could have had much longer lasting bulbs long ago, but for
Phoebus Conspiracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

TLDR: Back in the 1920s, a cartel of light bulb manufacturers
colluded to limit bulb life to 1000 hours. The cartel broke
up in 1939, but manufacturers continued to observe the limit.

If you think your LED bulbs last, and are efficient, then
you have heard of "Dubai Bulbs"

pt

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Cryptoengineer
If you think your LED bulbs last, and are efficient, then
you have heard of "Dubai Bulbs"
http://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4

Interesting, but that video is three years old and Philips has since
introduced an "ultra-efficient" line that pushes the claimed life
from 15,000 to 50,000 hours and about doubles the efficiency.
I have no idea if there is a Dubai version of those.

FWIW, when I purged the incandescents and some of the compact
fluorescents at home, I just bought cheap LED bulbs from the Aldi
middle aisle. Only for types where I needed to order a replacement
have I started taking a closer look at brand-name products.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Cryptoengineer
If you think your LED bulbs last, and are efficient, then
you have heard of "Dubai Bulbs"
http://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4

Interesting, but that video is three years old and Philips has since
introduced an "ultra-efficient" line that pushes the claimed life
from 15,000 to 50,000 hours and about doubles the efficiency.
I have no idea if there is a Dubai version of those.
FWIW, when I purged the incandescents and some of the compact
fluorescents at home, I just bought cheap LED bulbs from the Aldi
middle aisle. Only for types where I needed to order a replacement
have I started taking a closer look at brand-name products.

At some point I may start replacing my older LED bulbs with
full(er) spectrum versions.

https://optimizeyourbiology.com/best-natural-full-spectrum-lights

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Cryptoengineer
If you think your LED bulbs last, and are efficient, then
you have heard of "Dubai Bulbs"
http://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4

Interesting, but that video is three years old and Philips has since
introduced an "ultra-efficient" line that pushes the claimed life
from 15,000 to 50,000 hours and about doubles the efficiency.
I have no idea if there is a Dubai version of those.
FWIW, when I purged the incandescents and some of the compact
fluorescents at home, I just bought cheap LED bulbs from the Aldi
middle aisle. Only for types where I needed to order a replacement
have I started taking a closer look at brand-name products.

At some point I may start replacing my older LED bulbs with
full(er) spectrum versions.

I picked up some A-sized bulbs recently at Costco that have a multiposition
slide switch on the base that selects from five different
color temperatures from 5000K to 2200K.

I replaced all the 8' fluorescents in the barn with F96T12 LED bulbs
(and removed the old ballasts). 5000K for best color rendition.
Cut the power requirements by almost 70%.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Lurndal
I picked up some A-sized bulbs recently at Costco that have a multiposition
slide switch on the base that selects from five different
color temperatures from 5000K to 2200K.
I replaced all the 8' fluorescents in the barn with F96T12 LED bulbs
(and removed the old ballasts). 5000K for best color rendition.
Cut the power requirements by almost 70%.

All of those color temperatures are fake numbers that were made up by the
marketing department. Only a blackbody source has a color temperature.
What you are seeing is a number saying "This looks to the eye kind of
like blackbody source with a 5000K color temperature."

The CRI number basically describes how close to a blackbody source your
lamp is. But even the 95CRI LED and fluorescent lamps have pretty huge
spikes in the spectrum.
--scott

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Lurndal
I picked up some A-sized bulbs recently at Costco that have a multiposition
slide switch on the base that selects from five different
color temperatures from 5000K to 2200K.
I replaced all the 8' fluorescents in the barn with F96T12 LED bulbs
(and removed the old ballasts). 5000K for best color rendition.
Cut the power requirements by almost 70%.

All of those color temperatures are fake numbers that were made up by the
marketing department. Only a blackbody source has a color temperature.

Yes, all true.

Post by Scott Dorsey
What you are seeing is a number saying "This looks to the eye kind of
like blackbody source with a 5000K color temperature."

Which is certainly sufficient for the typical lightbulb buyer who wouldn't know
color temperature from a hole in the ground.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey
What you are seeing is a number saying "This looks to the eye kind of
like blackbody source with a 5000K color temperature."

Which is certainly sufficient for the typical lightbulb buyer who wouldn't know
color temperature from a hole in the ground.

Yes, but it doesn't tell them what they really want to know, which is
what the color rendition is like. With some of the cheaper LED lamps
and even some of the better CFLs, I can't tell the difference between
red and orange stripes on resistors. It's very obvious under incandescent
or daylight.

It's nice to know the approximate color temperature, but it's more useful
to know that these lamps will make your face look green when you look in
the mirror to shave.
--scott

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Yes, but it doesn't tell them what they really want to know, which is
what the color rendition is like. With some of the cheaper LED lamps
and even some of the better CFLs, I can't tell the difference between
red and orange stripes on resistors. It's very obvious under incandescent
or daylight.

When I started replacing lamps here, I picked up a simple spectroscope,
sold as an aid for jewelers, but more of a toy really. It's more
than sufficient to show that CFLs have a terrible spectrum, a lot
of lines with stark gaps inbetween. All LED lamps I have checked
display a continuous spectrum, even if there is some banding visible,
in particular at the blue end.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.

By now, of course, they may have tested them for the 5.7 years or so
it would take to reach 50,000 hours. Or not. But they almost certainly
did not do that before they were first introduced. Why delay a product
6 years just to do a test?

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.

I have /always/ considered the main advantage of CFLs and LEDs to be
that they don't have to be changed as often. This is very helpful
with, say, porch lights which /always/ go out on dark and rainy
nights. [1]

But I never bought the "you will save money" argument. Too many
variables.

[1] Normal bulbs, but the fixture is completely enclosed so the bulb
is not exposed to the weather.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
From a 20th century point of view, those figures are totally insane.
When cheap LED lamps became common a few years ago, I thought that
was the end of the line, but even LED lamps have made significant
further progress in beam angle, energy efficiency, and lifetime
within just the last few years. Anybody who is hoarding lamps for
use in a few years will be sitting on obsolete technology in no
time. Buy today, weep next year. Between the crazy pace of progress
and the ever absurder lifetimes, keeping spares around no longer
makes sense.
It is utterly stunning progress.

I have one fixture that uses incandescents because the last time I
tried to use CFLs the sockets parted and had to be replaced. But the
LEDs I now use are a lot lighter than the CFLs I used then so, if I
ever actually use up my remaining incandescent bulbs (the lamp isn't
used all that much), LEDs should work.

But future tech is future tech, and I will replace my current LEDs
with a box of New! Improved! LEDS (or whatever replaceds them) of the
future when the time comes.

It may take a while. The overhead light in the room I am typing this
in is a freebie LED sent out so long ago is in the shape of a loop
rather than a bulb. And it may already have lasted longer than the CFL
it replaced.

Note: for a while, when our City Light was keeping these records, my
house was /the/ lowest electricity user among its peers (single family
dwelling with oil heating). Reducing electricity useage is fine, but
not having to change the bulbs so often and, oh yes, less heat output
in the Summer are better reasons for switching.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that is
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.

One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

Post by Paul S Person
But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.=20
By now, of course, they may have tested them for the 5.7 years or so
it would take to reach 50,000 hours. Or not. But they almost certainly
did not do that before they were first introduced. Why delay a product
6 years just to do a test?

See above.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.

I have /always/ considered the main advantage of CFLs and LEDs to be
that they don't have to be changed as often. This is very helpful
with, say, porch lights which /always/ go out on dark and rainy
nights. [1]
But I never bought the "you will save money" argument. Too many
variables.

There is no doubt that they save money when compared with
incandescent bulbs.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that is
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.
One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

The map is not the terrain.

Of course, if every bulb is calculated the same way, comparisons
between different brands might be valid. If, of course, the various
brands keep using the exact same parts.

But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.=20
By now, of course, they may have tested them for the 5.7 years or so
it would take to reach 50,000 hours. Or not. But they almost certainly
did not do that before they were first introduced. Why delay a product
6 years just to do a test?

See above.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.

I have /always/ considered the main advantage of CFLs and LEDs to be
that they don't have to be changed as often. This is very helpful
with, say, porch lights which /always/ go out on dark and rainy
nights. [1]
But I never bought the "you will save money" argument. Too many
variables.

There is no doubt that they save money when compared with
incandescent bulbs.

If you say so.

I say it is irrelevant: people won't buy them to save money. Well,
unless they are growing ... lots and lots of plants ... indoors.

But they might buy lamps using them if the lamps claim to combat
SAD by mimicking sunlight. Even if they just make them feel better
(ie, combat SAD) by making them /think/ they are doing that.

Or because they are tired of changing the bulbs. One things CFLs did
was last a long long time. And the LEDs are looking to keep that
tradition.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that =

is

Post by Scott Lurndal
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.
One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

The map is not the terrain.

The goal is to create a statistical certainly. Obviously
any one bulb might be defective, but the majority
of bulbs will survive for the specified period.

Post by Paul S Person
But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.

I did no such thing.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.=3D20
By now, of course, they may have tested them for the 5.7 years or so
it would take to reach 50,000 hours. Or not. But they almost certainly
did not do that before they were first introduced. Why delay a product
6 years just to do a test?

See above.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.

I have /always/ considered the main advantage of CFLs and LEDs to be
that they don't have to be changed as often. This is very helpful
with, say, porch lights which /always/ go out on dark and rainy
nights. [1]
But I never bought the "you will save money" argument. Too many
variables.

There is no doubt that they save money when compared with
incandescent bulbs.

If you say so.

Consider that some 7 billion bulbs are sold each year in the
USA. Comparing a 60 watt incandescent to a 7 watt LED with
similar luminosity, the switch from incandescent to LED has
eliminated the need to build some number of power plants;
in that alone they've saved money (unfortunately, that
saved power has been diverted to wasteful cryptomining).

Post by Paul S Person
I say it is irrelevant: people won't buy them to save money.

They'll buy them because they're obviously superior to incandescents
in almost every way. And because they can no longer buy
non-special-purpose incandescents.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that =

is

Post by Scott Lurndal
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.
One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

The map is not the terrain.

The goal is to create a statistical certainly. Obviously
any one bulb might be defective, but the majority
of bulbs will survive for the specified period.

Post by Paul S Person
But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.

I did no such thing.

Actually, you did.

You confirmed that the length-of-life claims have no basis in how long
they actually last but merely in projections based on assumptions and
(have now added above ) are only true in the statistical sense -- as
opposed to the real-world sense.

The truth is that, unless everyone keeps strict records, we do not
have and never will have a true picture of how long they last under
various conditions.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
But one thing they /didn't/ do: actually use them "under normal
conditions" and see that they lasted 50 years.=3D20
By now, of course, they may have tested them for the 5.7 years or so
it would take to reach 50,000 hours. Or not. But they almost certainly
did not do that before they were first introduced. Why delay a product
6 years just to do a test?

See above.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.

I have /always/ considered the main advantage of CFLs and LEDs to be
that they don't have to be changed as often. This is very helpful
with, say, porch lights which /always/ go out on dark and rainy
nights. [1]
But I never bought the "you will save money" argument. Too many
variables.

There is no doubt that they save money when compared with
incandescent bulbs.

If you say so.

Consider that some 7 billion bulbs are sold each year in the
USA. Comparing a 60 watt incandescent to a 7 watt LED with
similar luminosity, the switch from incandescent to LED has
eliminated the need to build some number of power plants;
in that alone they've saved money (unfortunately, that
saved power has been diverted to wasteful cryptomining).

Again, if you say so.

The problem here is goalposts: I thought we were talking about
homeowner's buying them to save enough money on their electric bills
to eventually recoup the extra they spend on the bulbs, but apparently
its about some macroeconomic "benefit" that nobody actually sees and
whose alleged effects may be caused by many other factors.

Such as gummint regulation.

OTOH, I would cheerfully admit that a business that converts from,
say, fluorescent tubes to LED tubes might well find that /they/ save
enough money to amortize the cost of the conversion in a reasonable
time. Heck, if either (or both) of the fluorescent tube fixtures
(Kitchen and Bathroom) goes out, I will inquire into converting them
to LED tubes.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
I say it is irrelevant: people won't buy them to save money.

They'll buy them because they're obviously superior to incandescents
in almost every way. And because they can no longer buy
non-special-purpose incandescents.

Superman is obviously superior ... in every way. Somehow I don't see
LEDs leaping tall buildings at a single bound any time soon.

And speaking of gummint regulation ... you do realize that, if the
benefits were /that/ clear, incandescents would be gone because nobody
was buying them, right? Not because the gummint outlawed them.

And I seem to recall the Republicans some time back passing laws to
keep the ordinary 60W incandescent on the shelves. Or at least trying
to.

BTW, I noticed last night that the ceiling light in what we call "the
hall" for want of a better term is a 60W incandescent. I don't recall
ever changing it but, if I had when I was buying CFLs, it would be a
CFL so it must be a good 20 years old and probably much older and,
if/when it goes, it will be replaced by an LED. But it isn't used very
often. Incandescents can last a long long time if they are not used
very often. They also don't use a whole lot of electricity when they
are off.

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Paul S Person
BTW, I noticed last night that the ceiling light in what we call "the
hall" for want of a better term is a 60W incandescent. I don't recall
ever changing it but, if I had when I was buying CFLs, it would be a
CFL so it must be a good 20 years old and probably much older and,
if/when it goes, it will be replaced by an LED. But it isn't used very
often. Incandescents can last a long long time if they are not used
very often. They also don't use a whole lot of electricity when they
are off.

Or if they're rarely turned off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:11 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that =

is

Post by Scott Lurndal
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.
One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

The map is not the terrain.

The goal is to create a statistical certainly. Obviously
any one bulb might be defective, but the majority
of bulbs will survive for the specified period.

Post by Paul S Person
But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.

I did no such thing.

Actually, you did.
You confirmed that the length-of-life claims have no basis in how long
they actually last but merely in projections based on assumptions and
(have now added above ) are only true in the statistical sense -- as
opposed to the real-world sense.
The truth is that, unless everyone keeps strict records, we do not
have and never will have a true picture of how long they last under
various conditions.

It's science. Science is pretty good stuff.
It's probably also conservative - in the sense
of under-claiming what is delivered. In the
political sense, not wasting energy is the
opposite of conservative.

Claiming, on the same box, that LEDs last 11-22 years (IIRC) and that
CFLs last 7-9 years in one place and then that the LEDs actually
purchased can be expected to last 7 years (all at 3hrs/day useage) is
neither science nor conservativism.

It is marketing.

And it cannot be trusted or taken as in any way related to reality.

Look at the boxes for any LED bulbs you have purchased. Do they show
the same thing?

BTW, the two main bulbs (one now an LED, the other a CFL that has been
going for about 3.5 years per my records) are on during the day and
during the night (respectively). So between them, one or the other is
always on. So that is an average of 12 hours/day. Since 12 = 3 x 4,
7yrs/(12 hrs/3hrs/day) = 7/4 hrs = 1.75 years in realistic use. The
CFL, at least, is doing much better. And the LED is meeting
expectations.

If they want their claims to be valid, this is what they need to do:

-- create a standard specifying the various parts by /their/
electrical/electonic characterists
-- continue by specifying how they are to be put together
-- conclude by specifying how the tests are to be run and what they
must show for each number of hours allowed to be claimed
-- cite that standard on the packaging and display an emblem showing
that they actually complied with it

Saying "11-22 years" here and "7 years" there is /not/ the same as
saying "meets ISO ......... for <whatever> hours expected lifetime".

/Then/ they can claim to be putting out something other than marketing
bumpf.

I put "expected" in there because, being statistical, that is probably
what we are dealing with: the point at which half the bulbs will be
dead.

I still say it makes more sense to use them because they don't have to
be changed so often. Not to save money, not because of clearly BS
marketing claims.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:11 +0100, Robert Carnegie
BTW, the two main bulbs (one now an LED, the other a CFL that has been
going for about 3.5 years per my records) are on during the day and
during the night (respectively). So between them, one or the other is
always on. So that is an average of 12 hours/day. Since 12 =3D 3 x 4,
7yrs/(12 hrs/3hrs/day) =3D 7/4 hrs =3D 1.75 years in realistic use. The
CFL, at least, is doing much better. And the LED is meeting
expectations.

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/lsrc_colorshift_apr2017.pdf


LED packages rarely fail abruptly (i.e., instantaneously stop emittin
light), but rather experience parametric failures such as degradation
or shifts in luminous flux, color point (chromaticity coordinates),
color rendering index (CRI), or efficacy. Of these parametric shifts,
lumen depreciation has received the most attention because it was
previously thought that the degradation of lumen output of the LED
source itself would be the prime determinant of lifetime for the
completed product. While it is now understood that this is not
the case, lumen maintenance is still used as a proxy for LED lamp or
luminaire lifetime ratings, largely due to the availability of
standardized methods for measuring and projecting LED package lumen depreciation.


Many researchers have put a great deal of effort into devising a
way to project the time at which L70 will be reached for an LED
package in a luminaire, and IES has documented a forecasting procedure,
IES TM-21,3 which uses the LM-80 test data for the lumen maintenance
projections (a minimum of 6,000 hours of test data is required). The
LM-80 data (luminous flux vs. test hours) for the LEDs tested is averaged
and an exponential curve fit is applied to the data; the results of th
curve fit are used to calculate a lumen maintenance lifetime projection.
This technical memorandum stipulates that any projection may
not exceed a set multiple (depending on sample size statistics) of
the actual hours of LM-80 testing data taken, which helps avoid exaggerated claims.

It should be noted that LM-80 measurements are taken with the LED packages
operating continuously in a temperature-controlled environment, where the
solder point and ambient air temperature are at equilibrium. This does not
necessarily reflect real-world operating conditions, so there may not be a
perfect match between predictions based on laboratory test results and
practical experiences with lamps and luminaires in the field. Nevertheless,
lumen maintenance projections can help sophisticated users compare products,
as long as their limitations are properly understood.

When LEDs are installed in a luminaire or system, there are many
additional factors that can affect the rate of lumen depreciation
or the likelihood of catastrophic failure. These include temperature
extremes, humidity, chemical incursion, voltage or current fluctuations,
failure of the driver or other electrical components, damage or degradation
of the encapsulant material covering the LEDs, damage to the interconnections
between the LEDs and the fixture, degradation of the phosphors, and yellowing
of the optics. In addition, abrupt semi-random short-term failures may be
observed due to assembly, material, or design defects. More information on
system level lifetime can be found in LSRC's LED
Luminaire Lifetime: Recommendations for Testing and Reporting.

Much more useful information in the aforecited URL.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:11 +0100, Robert Carnegie
BTW, the two main bulbs (one now an LED, the other a CFL that has been
going for about 3.5 years per my records) are on during the day and
during the night (respectively). So between them, one or the other is
always on. So that is an average of 12 hours/day. Since 12 =3D 3 x 4,
7yrs/(12 hrs/3hrs/day) =3D 7/4 hrs =3D 1.75 years in realistic use. The
CFL, at least, is doing much better. And the LED is meeting
expectations.

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/lsrc_colorshift_apr2017.pdf
LED packages rarely fail abruptly (i.e., instantaneously stop emittin
light), but rather experience parametric failures such as degradation
or shifts in luminous flux, color point (chromaticity coordinates),
color rendering index (CRI), or efficacy. Of these parametric shifts,
lumen depreciation has received the most attention because it was
previously thought that the degradation of lumen output of the LED
source itself would be the prime determinant of lifetime for the
completed product. While it is now understood that this is not
the case, lumen maintenance is still used as a proxy for LED lamp or
luminaire lifetime ratings, largely due to the availability of
standardized methods for measuring and projecting LED package lumen depreciation.
Many researchers have put a great deal of effort into devising a
way to project the time at which L70 will be reached for an LED
package in a luminaire, and IES has documented a forecasting procedure,
IES TM-21,3 which uses the LM-80 test data for the lumen maintenance
projections (a minimum of 6,000 hours of test data is required). The
LM-80 data (luminous flux vs. test hours) for the LEDs tested is averaged
and an exponential curve fit is applied to the data; the results of th
curve fit are used to calculate a lumen maintenance lifetime projection.
This technical memorandum stipulates that any projection may
not exceed a set multiple (depending on sample size statistics) of
the actual hours of LM-80 testing data taken, which helps avoid exaggerated claims.
It should be noted that LM-80 measurements are taken with the LED packages
operating continuously in a temperature-controlled environment, where the
solder point and ambient air temperature are at equilibrium. This does not
necessarily reflect real-world operating conditions, so there may not be a
perfect match between predictions based on laboratory test results and
practical experiences with lamps and luminaires in the field. Nevertheless,
lumen maintenance projections can help sophisticated users compare products,
as long as their limitations are properly understood.
When LEDs are installed in a luminaire or system, there are many
additional factors that can affect the rate of lumen depreciation
or the likelihood of catastrophic failure. These include temperature
extremes, humidity, chemical incursion, voltage or current fluctuations,
failure of the driver or other electrical components, damage or degradation
of the encapsulant material covering the LEDs, damage to the interconnections
between the LEDs and the fixture, degradation of the phosphors, and yellowing
of the optics. In addition, abrupt semi-random short-term failures may be
observed due to assembly, material, or design defects. More information on
system level lifetime can be found in LSRC's LED
Luminaire Lifetime: Recommendations for Testing and Reporting.
Much more useful information in the aforecited URL.

No amount of weasel-words and bumpf can serve to do anything but
confirm my position.

And they are venturing near the "10 million unknown and unknowable
causes" cited by idiots trying to prove that the Universe is fully
deterministic. Which are an atheist's replacement for the hordes of
teeny-tiny devils and angels once believed to be endlessly flitting
about us and influencing our decisions. This is not credible in any
form. Well, quantum mechanics excepted, perhaps.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.

Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.

Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in
the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that =

is

Post by Scott Lurndal
a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
is used within specifications.
One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
product statistically based on that per-component data
accounting for effects that degrade the data such
as operating outside specification, etc.

The map is not the terrain.

The goal is to create a statistical certainly. Obviously
any one bulb might be defective, but the majority
of bulbs will survive for the specified period.

Post by Paul S Person
But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.

I did no such thing.

Actually, you did.
You confirmed that the length-of-life claims have no basis in how long
they actually last but merely in projections based on assumptions and
(have now added above ) are only true in the statistical sense -- as
opposed to the real-world sense.
The truth is that, unless everyone keeps strict records, we do not
have and never will have a true picture of how long they last under
various conditions.

It's science. Science is pretty good stuff.

It's probably also conservative - in the sense
of under-claiming what is delivered. In the
political sense, not wasting energy is the
opposite of conservative.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Christian Weisgerber
People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
happening.
I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.)
Not sexy? Too bad.
Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
amounts to some 50 years of average use.
Today I replaced two fluorescent tubes--one had died--in the kitchen
with LED tubes. Those require 1/3 the energy and Ledvance specifies
them with a lifetime of 75.000 hours. You do the math.
From a 20th century point of view, those figures are totally insane.
When cheap LED lamps became common a few years ago, I thought that
was the end of the line, but even LED lamps have made significant
further progress in beam angle, energy efficiency, and lifetime
within just the last few years. Anybody who is hoarding lamps for
use in a few years will be sitting on obsolete technology in no
time. Buy today, weep next year. Between the crazy pace of progress
and the ever absurder lifetimes, keeping spares around no longer
makes sense.
It is utterly stunning progress.

I am having to replace my 100 watt equivalent 15 watt actual LED bulbs
in my office building every three years or so. I have about a hundred
light fixtures in can lights, both inside and outside (mostly inside).
I use the lights about 50% of the time.

Evidently, the LED bulbs in the can lights is causing the LED electronic
circuit board to overheat since the bulb is upside down, base up. Many
of the LED bulbs that fail have discoloration and cracks in the base.

So 50% X three years X 8760 hours / year = a life of 13,140 hours per
LED bulb. My previous usage of incandescent bulbs was a life of about a
year at most. Plus more heat for the air conditioning and electric bill
for the building.

I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them. I have yet
to have any failures on these. They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Lynn

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Lynn McGuire
I am having to replace my 100 watt equivalent 15 watt actual LED bulbs
in my office building every three years or so. I have about a hundred
light fixtures in can lights, both inside and outside (mostly inside).
I use the lights about 50% of the time.

This about typical for the cheap no-name lamps when used in cans.

Post by Lynn McGuire
Evidently, the LED bulbs in the can lights is causing the LED electronic
circuit board to overheat since the bulb is upside down, base up. Many
of the LED bulbs that fail have discoloration and cracks in the base.

This is a combination of them being upside-down (and even the crappy ones
say on the datasheets that they can be used in any direction, even though
they usually can't) and the design of the cans which are intended for
incandescents.

Look for the Cree lamps that are marked "Good for Enclosed Use." They will
run twice the cost of the cheapies but last much more than twice as long.
(And of course the labour for relamping gets saved too.)
--scott

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Lynn McGuire
I am having to replace my 100 watt equivalent 15 watt actual LED bulbs
in my office building every three years or so. I have about a hundred
light fixtures in can lights, both inside and outside (mostly inside).
I use the lights about 50% of the time.

This about typical for the cheap no-name lamps when used in cans.

Yes, well, that's /always/ the excuse, isn't it? "You bought the wrong
ones -- it's your fault not the Holy Sacred LEDs".

Fukushima was designed properly; it just wasn't positioned too well.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Lynn McGuire
Evidently, the LED bulbs in the can lights is causing the LED electronic
circuit board to overheat since the bulb is upside down, base up. Many
of the LED bulbs that fail have discoloration and cracks in the base.

This is a combination of them being upside-down (and even the crappy ones
say on the datasheets that they can be used in any direction, even though
they usually can't) and the design of the cans which are intended for
incandescents.
Look for the Cree lamps that are marked "Good for Enclosed Use." They will
run twice the cost of the cheapies but last much more than twice as long.
(And of course the labour for relamping gets saved too.)

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:22:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snippo>

Post by Lynn McGuire
I am having to replace my 100 watt equivalent 15 watt actual LED bulbs
in my office building every three years or so. I have about a hundred
light fixtures in can lights, both inside and outside (mostly inside).
I use the lights about 50% of the time.
Evidently, the LED bulbs in the can lights is causing the LED electronic
circuit board to overheat since the bulb is upside down, base up. Many
of the LED bulbs that fail have discoloration and cracks in the base.
So 50% X three years X 8760 hours / year = a life of 13,140 hours per
LED bulb. My previous usage of incandescent bulbs was a life of about a
year at most. Plus more heat for the air conditioning and electric bill
for the building.

If it saves enough money to pay for itself (including, to be sure, the
labor costs for replacing them), then using them makes business sense.
Even if the asserted life is hooey.

Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them. I have yet
to have any failures on these. They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.

The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

There are LED light fixtures that look like a can fixture but aren't.
Couple inches deep at most. I have removed can fixtures and replaced
them with LED in-ceiling lights.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

There are commercial can fixtures with integral LEDs which most of the
big office building guys are using now instead of conventional can fixtures
with lamps screwed into them. I worry about them since they are not as
easily replaced as a light bulb, but I have no personal experience with them.
--scott

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

There are commercial can fixtures with integral LEDs which most of the
big office building guys are using now instead of conventional can fixtures
with lamps screwed into them. I worry about them since they are not as
easily replaced as a light bulb, but I have no personal experience with them.

I have a number of those in the house (couple dozen). So far, no problems.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

There are commercial can fixtures with integral LEDs which most of the
big office building guys are using now instead of conventional can fixtures
with lamps screwed into them. I worry about them since they are not as
easily replaced as a light bulb, but I have no personal experience with them.
--scott

I have six of them at the house. One died recently, probably 20+ years old.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:40:02 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

There are commercial can fixtures with integral LEDs which most of the
big office building guys are using now instead of conventional can fixtures
with lamps screwed into them. I worry about them since they are not as
easily replaced as a light bulb, but I have no personal experience with them.
--scott

I have six of them at the house. One died recently, probably 20+ years old.

Well, maybe. This suggests otherwise:

"Experimental white LEDs were demonstrated in 2014 to produce 303
lumens per watt of electricity (lm/W); some can last up to 100,000
hours." [20 yrs == 2034]

Then again,

"With the development of high-efficiency and high-power LEDs, it has
become possible to use LEDs in lighting and illumination. To encourage
the shift to LED lamps and other high-efficiency lighting, in 2008 the
US Department of Energy created the L Prize competition. The Philips
Lighting North America LED bulb won the first competition on August 3,
2011, after successfully completing 18 months of intensive field, lab,
and product testing." [20 yrs == 2031]

This is all from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode>,
which is what Bing produced for "led can lights wiki". Note that no
info on when led can lights first appeared was found. LEDs were around
earlier, but were mostly used in indicator lights (particularly red
indicator lights) and calculator displays (also red, and often with a
magnifying strip over them to make the numbers readable).

Note that I am not doubting that they work and last longer than
incandescents. But 20+ years seems a bit ... extreme.

Mine, purchase in Oct 2020, are more credible: the actual description
of the bulbs claims 7 years at 3hr/day. This is, of course, 7665
hours, ignoring leap years. Of course, mine are in use for a lot
longer than a measly 3 hours each day.

But that's not a problem. More problematic is that a general chart
above the actual claim shows LEDs lasting 10-22 years at 3hr/day. And
it shows CFLs lasting 7-9 years at 3hr/day.

IOW, it says that the LEDs I bought can be expected to last as long as
an LED that makes it to the lowest part of its range. Still, what can
you expect from bulbs that cost less than $2 each?

This, BTW, is the sort of nonsense that positively /screams/
"marketing bumpf -- do not take seriously".

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Scott Dorsey
There are commercial can fixtures with integral LEDs which most of the
big office building guys are using now instead of conventional can fixtures
with lamps screwed into them. I worry about them since they are not as
easily replaced as a light bulb, but I have no personal experience with them.

Apparently there is a regulation in California that requires these
fixtures to be provided with a standard pluggable disconnect so that
they can be replaced easily. Because California is such a big market
for energy efficiency, what sells there is also sold everywhere else
in the country.

-GAWollman

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:57:23 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Scott Dorsey
There are commercial can fixtures with integral LEDs which most of the
big office building guys are using now instead of conventional can fixtures
with lamps screwed into them. I worry about them since they are not as
easily replaced as a light bulb, but I have no personal experience with them.

Apparently there is a regulation in California that requires these
fixtures to be provided with a standard pluggable disconnect so that
they can be replaced easily. Because California is such a big market
for energy efficiency, what sells there is also sold everywhere else
in the country.

The LEDs I purchased in Oct 2020 have the box info in both English and
French. This is far from unique, and suggests to me that it was
intended to be sold in Canada as well as the USA. So pluggable
disconnects may be available in the USA as well, if the product is
intended for both Canada and the USA.

Bing "led can lights pluggables" brings up images of ... led can
lights with plugs. Lots of them.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:22:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<snippo>

Post by Lynn McGuire
I am having to replace my 100 watt equivalent 15 watt actual LED bulbs
in my office building every three years or so. I have about a hundred
light fixtures in can lights, both inside and outside (mostly inside).
I use the lights about 50% of the time.
Evidently, the LED bulbs in the can lights is causing the LED electronic
circuit board to overheat since the bulb is upside down, base up. Many
of the LED bulbs that fail have discoloration and cracks in the base.
So 50% X three years X 8760 hours / year = a life of 13,140 hours per
LED bulb. My previous usage of incandescent bulbs was a life of about a
year at most. Plus more heat for the air conditioning and electric bill
for the building.

If it saves enough money to pay for itself (including, to be sure, the
labor costs for replacing them), then using them makes business sense.
Even if the asserted life is hooey.
Perhaps there are can fixtures designed to use LEDs.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them. I have yet
to have any failures on these. They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.

And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took ten
minutes to turn on. Plus the old metal halide lights were 1,000 watts
each which was torture in the summer. Nice in the winter though.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 6/24/2024 1:55 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took ten
minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were 1,000 watts
each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with the
new 150 watt LED light fixture. So much smaller !
Loading Image...

Lynn

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took
ten minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were 1,000
watts each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with the
new 150 watt LED light fixture.  So much smaller !
  https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg
Lynn

Also appears that you're reducing the number of lights.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took
ten minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were 1,000
watts each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with
the new 150 watt LED light fixture.  So much smaller !
   https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg
Lynn

Also appears that you're reducing the number of lights.

Nope. Still the same number of inside and outside light fixtures.
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

I still have four more light fixtures to replace that I will get to real
soon now, maybe next winter when it gets cool again. The boom lift
costs me $300 per day and I typically get three fixtures done per day.

Lynn

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took
ten minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were 1,000
watts each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with
the new 150 watt LED light fixture.  So much smaller !
   https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg
Lynn

Also appears that you're reducing the number of lights.

Nope.  Still the same number of inside and outside light fixtures.
  https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_west_side.jpg
  https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_east_side.jpg
I still have four more light fixtures to replace that I will get to real
soon now, maybe next winter when it gets cool again.  The boom lift
costs me $300 per day and I typically get three fixtures done per day.
Lynn

Bad assumption on my part. Since it appeared there were four across I
assumed you'd taken one out there.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took
ten minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were
1,000 watts each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the
winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with
the new 150 watt LED light fixture.  So much smaller !
   https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg
Lynn

Also appears that you're reducing the number of lights.

Nope.  Still the same number of inside and outside light fixtures.
   https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_west_side.jpg
   https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_east_side.jpg
I still have four more light fixtures to replace that I will get to
real soon now, maybe next winter when it gets cool again.  The boom
lift costs me $300 per day and I typically get three fixtures done per
day.
Lynn

Bad assumption on my part. Since it appeared there were four across I
assumed you'd taken one out there.

There is an old metal halide light fixture above each of the office
balconies that I need to swap, one is going to be nightmare since the
tenant built a meeting room up there. And one in the outside overhang.
And one in the southeast corner of the warehouse. Four total.

There is no light fixture in the middle row above the staircase. That
would have made too much sense to put one in there.

Lynn

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took
ten minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were
1,000 watts each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the
winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with
the new 150 watt LED light fixture.  So much smaller !
   https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg
Lynn

Also appears that you're reducing the number of lights.

Nope.  Still the same number of inside and outside light fixtures.
   https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_west_side.jpg
   https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_east_side.jpg
I still have four more light fixtures to replace that I will get to
real soon now, maybe next winter when it gets cool again.  The boom
lift costs me $300 per day and I typically get three fixtures done per
day.
Lynn

Bad assumption on my part. Since it appeared there were four across I
assumed you'd taken one out there.

There is an old metal halide light fixture above each of the office
balconies that I need to swap, one is going to be nightmare since the
tenant built a meeting room up there. And one in the outside overhang.
And one in the southeast corner of the warehouse. Four total.
There is no light fixture in the middle row above the staircase. That
would have made too much sense to put one in there.

For someone who I thought ran a SW business, that's a lot of HW.

Pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
I have some 150 watt (70 bulbs) and 200 watt (90 bulbs) LED light
fixtures inside and outside my warehouse, about 20 of them.  I have yet
to have any failures on these.  They do have a huge heat sink on them as
the fixture weighs about 13 lbs.
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077ZNJRFS/

Currently unavailable -- but others are shown further down the page.
The size was interesting -- 17 x 15.7 x 2.4 inches
(length/width/height). That's a lot of light in a small package!

They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took
ten minutes to turn on.  Plus the old metal halide lights were
1,000 watts each which was torture in the summer.  Nice in the
winter though.
Lynn

Here is me replacing one of the 1,000 watt metal halide lights with
the new 150 watt LED light fixture.  So much smaller !
   https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg
Lynn

Also appears that you're reducing the number of lights.

Nope.  Still the same number of inside and outside light fixtures.
   https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_west_side.jpg
   https://www.winsim.com/warehouse_east_side.jpg
I still have four more light fixtures to replace that I will get to
real soon now, maybe next winter when it gets cool again.  The boom
lift costs me $300 per day and I typically get three fixtures done per
day.
Lynn

Bad assumption on my part. Since it appeared there were four across I
assumed you'd taken one out there.

There is an old metal halide light fixture above each of the office
balconies that I need to swap, one is going to be nightmare since the
tenant built a meeting room up there. And one in the outside overhang.
And one in the southeast corner of the warehouse. Four total.
There is no light fixture in the middle row above the staircase. That
would have made too much sense to put one in there.

For someone who I thought ran a SW business, that's a lot of HW.
Pt

I have three businesses. Engineering software, real estate, and real
estate. More than a one trick pony here.

Lynn

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Lynn McGuire
They light the inside and outside of my 3,750 ft2 warehouse very well.
And they turn on instantly whereas the old metal halide lights took ten
minutes to turn on. Plus the old metal halide lights were 1,000 watts
each which was torture in the summer. Nice in the winter though.

This is an application where the poor CRI isn't an issue at all...
especially given how poor the color rendition from typical MH lamps is.
Even the poorest LED fixtures are a huge step up. Also acoustically quieter
when you ditch the magnetic ballasts.
--scott