Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:2-year CFLs (Score 1) 129

by rgmoore (#47417703) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

I wonder how much of that is because of the way you're using them. They give a lifespan estimate, but that's making some very broad assumptions about how you use them. Those estimates about how many years they'll last are based on you using it for so many hours per day but only turning it on a few times per day. If you turn the light on and off many times per day, as you might in a bathroom or if you're using an occupancy sensor, the filaments will wear out a lot sooner than the projected lifespan. If you're really turning the lights on and off a lot, LEDs are probably a better choice.

Comment: Re:Kids mix fine with LED's (Score 1) 129

by rgmoore (#47417319) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

Their energy savings is not that much better than CFLs...

That depends on what you consider "much better". The newer LED bulbs at big box retailers like Home Depot are now using around 1/3 less power than equivalent CFLs. That's not the same kind of savings you get from switching from incandescent to CFL, but it's still substantial. If power costs more than about $0.10/kW, they're probably worth the increased up-front cost.

Comment: Re:Perspective (Score 1) 133

by Greyfox (#47414897) Attached to: Dwarf Fortress Gets Biggest Update In Years
Yeah! I remember the first time I tunneled into a cave system, not realizing that some forgotten beasts can fly. Well naturally one flies up after a couple of years and starts breathing poison clouds everywhere. All my dwarves are running around and completely freaking out and I just can't stop laughing hysterically watching the devastation. I've never experienced that in a game before...

Comment: Funnily (Score 3) 508

by Greyfox (#47414855) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software
In most of my jobs, HR hires normal humans. The vast majority of them don't particularly enjoy programming. Most of them got into it because they heard it was a good salary. Some of them are pretty good at it, some of them aren't. Maybe 5% of the programmers I've met will go home and write more code because they enjoy it and have their own projects they want to do. Seems to me that with a small bit of training, a normal human CAN do programming and do it reasonably well if they put their mind to it.

They also seem to have an above-average chance to push management to jump on some new framework bandwagon because they think that will solve all their problems. To be a really good programmer, you have to know how to program, understand the processes that you're automating with your code and realize that no silver bullet will allow you to NOT understand the processes that you're automating. If you don't understand what you're trying to do, you're not going to do it very well.

Comment: Re:Three years and counting (Score 1) 129

by rgmoore (#47411987) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

Sometimes, the cheapest and most efficient LED bulbs are in the blue end of the spectrum, especially when the color temperature doesn't matter too much - like a flashlight.

In that case, it's not so much the color temperature as it is the spectrum. The color temperature tells you what temperature of blackbody radiation your light source most closely resembles, but it doesn't tell you how closely it resembles it. Our eyes work best with light that has a distribution similar to blackbody radiation, i.e. with a wide, smooth distribution of wavelengths. If the distribution has sharp spikes, it can cause things to look the wrong color compared to what they're expected to look like. This is most obvious if you get one of the LED lights that uses a mix of pure red, green, and blue to simulate other colors; you can get something that looks like white if you look directly at the lights, but nothing they shine on looks right. That color shift is what CRI (color rendering index) is supposed to measure.

Lights have to have a CRI of at least 80 to qualify for Energy Star, which means that most household lights are now fairly decent. Cheaper lights and ones not intended for general illumination may go for higher efficiency at the cost of lower CRI, which is what you're probably noticing in the light from flashlights. High CRI (90+) lights are available, but they're usually a bit more expensive and less efficient.

Comment: Re:Dirty power (Score 1) 129

by rgmoore (#47411839) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

Generally speaking, anything with lots of parts has more points of failures.

Maybe that's true in general, but in the specific case of lighting, incandescent lights obviously have a much shorter life span than CFLs or LEDs. There's plenty of reason to think that incandescent lights do badly with power spikes. My experience is that they're a lot more likely to fail when you turn the light on than any other time, which suggests susceptibility to power surges. It's just that replacing dead incandescent lights is a regular activity, so the occasional failure due to power spikes is much less noticeable than for a light you expect to replace once or twice a decade.

Comment: Re:Dirty power (Score 1) 129

by rgmoore (#47411367) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

I wouldn't be so sure that energy efficient lights a lot more sensitive to dirty power than incandescent lights. It's just that incandescent lights have such a high background failure rate. If a CFL or LED light dies, you assume there must be a problem with it because their rate of natural death is so low. With incandescent lights, you would have a hard time telling whether one died because of bad power or because it's just given up the ghost.

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys