Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:51:19 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:21:54 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
<naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>

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.

>
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.
>
>
>

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.

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.
>

>

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.

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.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"