Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about

On 22/06/2024 17:26, Paul S Person wrote:

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.

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.