I can't speak about electrical mnanufacturers but I'm somewhat familiar with things in the pharmaceutical world (close relative served as VP of BMY for many years). They spend almost as much on advertising as on production and R&D combined.
Nothing. Bobby and Dave both like to use such mischaracterizations in place of logic and data.
Agreed. I pointed out the non-response repeatedly and Bobby continued as though no ine had said anything. It's almost like arguing in ASA.
Someone one quipped that lightbulbs don't actually illuminate anything. They just suck light out of the room when you turn them off. I suspect one side of this argument is trying to do just that.
Where on Green's Gawdawful Earth does " 6% " come from? Please don't make stuff up or confuse apples with cows if you want what you write to be considered seriously.
Straw man Alert: Nobody -- even BobbyG it seems -- is "hoping" this.
Have you ever had differential equations? This is a classic application of simultaneous differential equations. Matrices of the coefficients (Did you check out the "Leopoldville matrix" I wrote about?) of the various different equations can be used to solve this sort of problem mathematically.
A simple example is a bucket with a hole in it out of which water is leaking, and a supply of water being poured into it.
The rate at which water comes out the hole depends on the pressure head at the bottom of the bucket. Clear so far ? (Lots of water--> big drip. Little water --> small drip. You've seen this many times.)
The level of the water in bucket (and so the pressure head at the bottom of the bucket) depends on how much water there is to begin with, how fast the water is being poured in, and the initial rate of the leak.
Now image a bucket with multiple sized holes at different heights.
And then imagine multiple buckets at different levels above and below one another and water dripping from some into others.
This is akin to the mercury problem (where we have different amounts representing the inflow of water to the bucket): Mercury from US sources from coal, Mercury from foreign sources such as South American gold processing Mercury from existing glass plating operations (in the Ohio River, today, as we speak! ) Mercury from thermostats, Mercury from Conventional fluorescents and mercury vapor lamps Mercury from thermometers Mercury from labs Mercury from Scientific instrumentation (including stream gaging equipment Mercury from Spills Mercury from Natural Sources and yes, Mercury from CFLs
And there are different buckets
The US atmosphere The Hemispheric atmosphere Sealed flasks in storage under lock and key Thermostats in millions of houses Thermometers all over creation Conventional fluorescents Dumps and landfills High School basements with old chem sets And yes, CFLs
And each of these buckets has a various different sized holes, for example, for dumps and landfills there are:
Old town dumps in quarries (yikes!) leak more than Old sanitary landfills which leak more than Modern, monitored sanitary landfills which leak more than Hazardous waste repositories and so on
The challenge is to keep someone (you, me or your granddaughter) that is sitting on a chair beneath all these buckets as dry as *you* can.
Don't tell me that you are going to put a plug in the holes because:
1) you don't have enough fingers
2) that will just cause the bucket to (eventually) overflow.
and yes you can catch some of the drip in a bucket you hold for a while, but that bucket also has holes in it.
The optimum strategy involves timing and knowing the pathways that cause the water to drip on your granddaughter, and getting to what's most important first..
You, BobbyG, apparently claim to know best how to keep your granddaughter dry. But I disagree based on years of trying to keep *you* dry.
Now imagine that we also have whole SETS of buckets for
ROTFL Whenever this newsgroup is on the verge of losing its appeal, we get treated to one of these howlers ;-)
Ya gotta luv it.
On the physics of the matter, all incandescents, including halogens, and all fluorescents, compact or not, put out less light with time. Fluorescents can be much worse than incandescents so one might need to take this into consideration in sizing the lamp.
On the implied "I didn't get the lumens I paid for" note that in a previous thread I posted data indicating that the n-Vision CFLs I tested initially put out more than their advertised output wrt the reference incandescent I used.
These are practical considerations that may affect how beloved CFLs are or are not and where to use them (or not).
The thigh-slapper comes when one compares the hand wringing about the sacrifices and draconian measures needed (which FWIW I think are largely 'on the money' if you can pardon the pun ;-) and the endless proscriptions and prescriptions and judgmental declarations about what _other_ folks should do, and the changes and sacrifices and changes in life-style that will be required (I agree) with HOW LITTLE FOLKS ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO SACRIFICE !
So hip hyp hooray! I think we can officially add the fourth "hyp*" to "hippo-talk" ;-)
On a positive note /spin, advertisers could use a variation on the "This salmon won't turn pink in the can" ruse.
"Don't be blinded by those old-fashioned, instant-on bulbs. These special lamps ramp up slowly, obviating the need for expensive dimmers that need complicated programming."
The instant-gratification generation would gobble it up ;-)
"A reporter" is not "They". It is one reporter". One story. Twenty years ago.
I've contributed and been quoted or been used as background for dozens of news reports and articles.
Reality is that reporters, and editors and journalists come in all shapes and sizes and abilities. And that simplifying complex stories is difficult.
But I have never worked with any reporter or editor that came/comes close to being as consistently inaccurate and careless in language usage as BobbyG typically is in this newsgroup. Not one.
"They" ? Are "They" in black helicopters. UN or ECO ?
But they wrote _"can"_ as in "might" and Slate does *not* write for the "typical home". Slate writes for folks with houses _full_ of electronics.
The standby power consumption of actual devices varies widely even within a category. For example while that of most LCD and TVs is less than a couple watts, it is reported that the standby power of the
This is apparently because these TV/LCDs can have more than one "Power down" mode. For example, Westinghouse's LTV-32W3
"E-Saver: takes longer to power up but requires less power Normal: powers up quicker but requires more power "
So even a _single_ (eg) Sharp Aquos LC-65D90U at 76 watts is more than what Slate says.
Imagine a house full of these and similar in Slates' affluent target demographic!
Standby modes in some other devices are also standby for function only, and don't actually reduce power at all. The on-off switch on my cable model disconnects the modem signal but does nothing wattsoever for power consumption.
Folks looking for ways to be proactive should look for the EnergyStar label which reflects a qualitative assessment provided by one of those agencies that is endlessly maligned by a few bitter everybody-but-me- bashers in this newsgroup.
ROTFL
Why should Slate "certainly know better" because one of the millions and millions of web sites out there shows one of the thousands of ways to measure power -- which Slate makes no claim of having done themselves anyway?
And on a page that was published 24 months before the Slate article back in 2005 no less!
Moreover this url provides NO DATA WHATSOEVER on actual devices.
So even if Slate's writers had memorized every word and taped copies on their refrigerators, it wouldn't help them one iota "to know better".
The reason Dave indulges in this deception, and pollutes this newsgroup with it, is that Dave wants to make yet another reference, once again, to the ever-handy Kill-A-Watt device sold through Radio Shack and Smarthome, among many other places, that Dave once wrote an obscure online review about that couldn't be found or read when he referenced it ;-)
This is intellectual garbage and self-promotion poorly done.
I conclude without uncertainty that Dave is the one deliberately spreading misinformation.
Dave scours the Internet looking for things to criticize in order to find things to quibble with to show that he is a Very Superior Person. Trouble is, it has the opposite effect.
There's evidence for burning of coal going back at least to Iron Age (pre-Roman) AS Uggo (maybe?;-) said: " Must catch Double Oxide of Black Crud and Quicksilver. Must solve problem for 36,000 moons from now."
You do understand that these problems are cumulative, right? And that the carbon that you BobbyG caused to be put in the atmosphere in the past is only infinitesimally less important than the carbon that you will cause to be released in the future.
I assert this, because it is a critical concept with wide ranging repercussions and implications and constraints on how to solve the problem(s). Economists are grappling with the third order effects (so to speak) of this at this time.
Pop Quiz: With respect to CO2: Is it better to spend X dollars now to make n units of improvement now, or 0.8X dollars in the future to make
0.9n units of improvement in the future. The answer depends both on the science AND the economics, and ya know BobbyG, I'm quite sure that you don't really know despite all the words you write and the certainty with which you write them,
Yes, by burning coal and refining gold, and building thermostats and filling our teeth , and trying to cure syphilis, and by using it record river water levels and 70 years of conventional fluorescent lamps and .... and its is all with us forever.
Reality check: *Who* is hoping that it is all going to be "properly recycled" ? It hasn't been and won't be. Period.
The list of things in which the US is far behind the leaders includes:
Life expectancy Health care Education, Foreign Aid,
What we are leaders in includes.
Percent of population in prison Military expenditures, Per capita energy consumption
When I stopped to think about it, it seemed pretty much what I expected and projected.
Hippo-Talk Alert
We could give this assignment to sixth graders and they would come up with a long list of benefits "that we could hope for" from CFLs. many have been repeated in the newsgroup several times. But BobbyG seems impervious to these facts and instead hippo-speaks in ways that would get the greenest cub reporter fired.
Whether Bobby understands it or not,
the excess CO2 that he didn't create, the mountaintop he didn't help to remove, the mercury that didn't get spewed, the urban heat he didn't contribute to the ...( etc)
Became
the excess CO2 he *did* create, the mountaintop he *did* help remove, the mercury he *did* cause to be spewed, the urban heat island he *did* contribute to (etc)
when he switched back to the incandescent lamp.
That's the reality that he wants to avoid to have to "stop and think about" with this hippo-speak.
It helps to "stop and think" about the old adage that "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
Or in the immortal words of Walt Kelly's Pogo in a poster for the first Earth Day in 1970 (published in the book of the same name in that extraordinary year of 1972) : "We have met the enemy and he is us".
This is part of why when Dave Houston advances the fiction that nothing has changed with CFLs in 20 years, which he first did five years ago in this newsgroup, and that fluorescents are a Quote: "bad idea", as he also did, the effects are so pernicious.
He uses a falsehood (namely that nothing has changed) to discourage folks that might otherwise find CFLs jist fine from trying them.
If folks were charged with the carbon footprint of the indirect results of their actions and recommendations, Dave'd be in deep doodoo. As is, there are few significant negative consequence for him although others might be paying for long it after we're gone and what he's done is recorded in perpetuity..
Your dollars are always urgently needed. So it's good to hear that you are actually going to contribute, right? 10% is a conventional tithe, but might seem a bit steep in the beginning.
I you choose from the list of IRS-qualified organizations listed here
formatting link
your contributions may be eligible for deduction from Federal income taxes (and typically state income tax also) under the provisions explained here:
formatting link
Having founded and(or) been Director and(or) Chair of four non-profit organizations in the last decade that focus on environmental improvement, and having been in the elected leadership of others, and having donated time and $ to countless more, I know that one of biggest challenges it to get folks to 'walk the walk'. Its easy and comfortable to confuse popping off once in a while with actual contributions, useful actions and significant sacrifice.
This is Rush Limbaugh-talk, parroting the fact-free hypocrisy of AM talk radio.
It is sad to see Dave bitterly smearing "environmentalists", and journalists, and scientists, and the academic community, and regulatory agencies, and the medical profession, and elected officials, and other entire realms of positive and necessary human endeavor.
Dave has shown that he can make very positive contributions in some specialized technical areas. But this part of his legacy is increasingly negative and ugly and a disservice to himself and the comp.home.automation newsgroup in my opinion.
Fascinating. You berate me for this "tired, tiring" mostly-off-topic thread yet *you've* posted the last *EIGHT* messages. Are you claiming the same "I rode a bike" exemption for this wasteful excursion as well as for your jet blowout?
Perhaps you could explain the principles which excuse you from practicing what you preach? For instance, you accuse me of being "sophomoric" and then turn right around and spell my name "Booby" and trot out your favorite animal insults about parrots and hippos.
Sophomoric means conceited and immature, in case it's one of the big "S" words like "schadenfreude" that apparently confuses you. People who are conceited have a profound need to tell others of their great accomplishments, whether asked to or not. You'll often find them using needlessly large words in an effort to demonstrate how much smarter (they think) they are than everyone else. People who are immature resort to frequent name calling and barnyard humor, even in adult situations. Clear now?
And yes, I "does agrees" with it otherwise "he have wouldn't" posted it. You're a hoot. Makes me want to find a daisy and play "He have", "he have wouldn't", "he have" . . .
Actually, he said it was marginally on-topic. I disagree. It was originally on-topic but it morphed, as virtually all prolonged Usenet threads do.
I was under the distinct impression that he does practice what he preaches, at least as far as environmental matters are concerned (I don't know Marc well enough to speak of other matters). He has spent a lifetime working to fight pollution and to better the environment -- especially waterways. I wish I could claim one tenth of what he has done. I don't know you personally, Bobby, but from what you've posted to date I doubt you can claim as much either.
Those weren't "animal insults." Parroting is an accepted term meaning to repeat what another has said. Hippo-speak referred to what you wrote -- not to you personally.
Yes, it also means Intellectually pretentious and I suspect that was what he meant. If so, his aim is dead on.
Hmm. You complain of being insulted and in the next breath imply the man is unable to understand. Perhaps the word, "disingenuous" confuses you?
It isn't conceit to be aware of one's achievements. You've attempted to debate Marc in a subject on which he is far more knowledgeablke than you. When presented with facts (real ones; not quotes from Houston whose intellectual honesty runs neck and neck with Bush) you ignore then and repost the same blather as though your claims had not already been repudiated. You cite some knowledge-free online author as the basis for an erroneous argument, back it up with insulting comments about environmentalists (in case you haven't noticed, that includes Marc) and now you're miffed because he cited his own credentials?
It may seem that way, but what's really at play is that Marc has a wider vocabulary than you. You should regard this as a good thing. It gives you an opportunity to broaden yours.
People who find themselves in over their heads in a debate sometimes resort to the same thing. Clear now?
On this we agree. But then, I've always had a weird sense of humor.
Marc apparently bases his rather caustic comments on his own quite mistaken premise I fail to understand multivariate analysis. His supposition was quite wrong: I understand it quite well enough to know that his estimate of his recent flight's carbon load was astonishingly incomplete. It lacked a host of important variables so it's no wonder his numbers came out ridiculously low compared to the source Dave cited about the carbon load of a typical jet flight.
He omitted big things like the megawatts of radar his plane was bathed in from start to finish, the support facilities it took to get that flight in the air, megawatts of airport and air traffic control tower electrical power and landing lights, the carbon load of constructing the plane, refining the fuel, maintaining the plane, the airport and probably a dozen other interrelated activities that all produced CO2 (and worse) on his behalf, just for that one flight.
I don't know why these additional, collateral items slipped his mind. After all, he's told us - repeatedly - what an expert he is at building these models. I think there's another reason he's so in favor of CFL's. Someone's got to offset all that flying extravagance for him! Another poster who supports Marc's position also appears to own two homes on different continents. So many homeless people, so much pollution and they want us to pee in the dim light of a CFL so they both can maintain and fly to residences on different continents? That's chutzpah! And resource hogging on a pretty grand scale. All while piously preaching that we commoners should accept an inferior product, covered with warts, to help save the world.
With gross omissions like the aircraft and flight support from his calculations, it's not surprising that I don't buy into Marc's premise that putting mercury into millions of previously mercury-free consumer products is going to solve the mercury problem. Like his jet flight model, he's missed way too many variables in the CFL scenario for his multivariate analysis to give him very accurate information (although he apparently and quite astonishingly was able to calculate the projected mercury landfill load to the microgram using it!)
In addition to the variables he's outright missed, he's made assumptions about the efficiency of recycling that my monthly train trips to NYC show to be very optimistic. We had to wait recently while the contents dumped from a truck were removed from the tracks, including sofas and beds. The Amtrak roadbed is one big garbage dump from DC to NYC.
I guess since he's not likely to father a child, the known mutagenic effects of mercury aren't really an issue for him. But they should be for everyone young enough to have children. The interesting thing about mercury pollution is that the cost is shifted at random to young couples who have to care for babies with birth defects. I'm sure an honest model would account for those dreadful societal costs.
Robert L Bass reconstructed written history in a novel way to say:
Excuse me? When someone says a person is "parroting someone else" that's an insult. It clearly implies they have no intelligence of their own. When they spell "Bobby" as "Booby" (which your apologia oddly omits, as if it never happened because it undermines your rather novel interpretation of recent posts), it's the same sort of juvenile insult.
Can you really say with a straight face that "hippo-speak" is not personal when I am the only one it's used on? Repeatedly? How does he know I don't/didn't have a weight problem and that's a *truly* hateful epithet? He doesn't. He's just guessing, and badly at that. Spin it all you want but even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
Let's set some things straight: People who resort to demeaning speech have very little intention of rational discussion like gentlemen. They usually want to bash people down in an effort to elevate themselves. If people want "cogent responses" they might try sticking to the facts instead of making relatively tasteless AND baseless guesses about someone's IQ as a way to win a debate. If anyone mistakenly believes that the discussion was something collegial, as you're strongly implying with your spin control, we merely need to examine the actual written words. It's clear this is NOT "debate" - it's merely insults and abuse. Don't take my word for it. Here are some actual quotes:
"Does BobbyG have any clue"
"no cogent response" "He's just babbling at this point"
"the average Cub Scout is a better economist than . . ."
"Bobby's may never have actually (effectively) done any of the things that he thinks _other_ people should do _for_ him"
"For folks that have a hard time thinking their way out a paper bag,"
"Now it's taken BoobyG a while to get taken in"
"present facts that you don't like, or, apparently, understand."
"you are not knowledgeable enough"
Can you spin those into non-insults too, Robert? Why on earth would an intelligent person dignify such a constant stream of insults with a direct response of any kind, no matter how interesting the subject?
It's not an "animal insult" (like Houston's references to fish). It was a true statement. You reiterated Houston's claims and cited unsupported claims from a website. You also completely ignored it when you were told why you are wtong about CFLs and mercury. You still have not accepted anything that's been said, even by an accomplished scientist who happens to work in this area.
I doubt that Marc thinks you have no intelligence and I can assure you that I don't think so either. However, I agree with Marc that you're probably not as knowledgeable as you try to appear.
I omitted it because I was unsure whether it was "aciidental" Can you really say with a straight face that
Perhaps that has something to do with what you posted.
Now you're stretching, trying to make something out of nothing. He made no other references to your weight problem. For that matter, I'm sure he didn't even realize you're overweight. FWIW, I could stand to shed a few pounds myself.
Oh, please. You're being childish.
Oh, so you're not fat. OK, then what's all the whining about?
My dog reacted the same way no matter what you intended. She believed in the old adage, "bite first and ask questions later," or something like that.
Would that include calling environmentalists a bunch of sellouts while in a discussion with an environmentalist?
Some people do the same thing with ideas. They bash the efforts of others without understanding, insult the intelligence of those who work to develop solutions to serious problems and offer
*nothing* of value as an alternative.
IQ doesn't impress me. I couldn't care less if you are a Mensa candidate or their janitor. If you share useful information and ideas, contribute to the betterment of the newsgroup and act as if you respect others, I'm impressed. OTOH, if you do nothing but knock the ideas and suggestions of knowledgeable folks, hold yourself forth as more learned than you are and generally act as though you've no respect for anyone else, I have no use for you, regardless what your IQ may be.
For example, one regular poster here would like us to think he's the "smartest kid on the block." He's rude, obnoxious, dishonest and risrespectful. Even in raw intelligence he leaves much more to be desired than what he hopes we think. He does know a lot about X10 though. That makes him about as close to totally worthless as one can get.
OTOH, Marc is one of the most knowledgeable participants in this newsgroup. He's respectful and invariably posts useful and on-topic information. There are only a few people I've seen that manage to incur his wrath. Other than a few trouble-makers from a certain other newsgroup, only you and Dave Houston seem to annoy him. Ask yourself why that might be.
It was collegial at first. You say spin control as thoough you think I have something to win or lose by correcting you. I don't. In fact, I've resisted the urge to plonk you only because you occasionally post something of value.
Ask yourself why that question was asked. Perhaps if you responded to the numerous points others have made instead of ignoring them and repeating the same unsupportable claims, you'd find yourself in the midst of a friendly discussion.
This was an accurate assessment. You gave no cogent response to what you were taught. One of the many definitions of "babble" is: "To blurt out impulsively; disclose without careful consideration." -- American Heritage Dictionary
I don't know any Cub Scouts so I can't evaluate that statement. I can say that much of what you've said about mercury and CFLs is wrong.
That is also true. Have you built a scrubber? Have you done any documented research on ways to reduce mercury contamination. Hint: Quoting Wikipedia isn't "research."
That was a bit rough, about even with 200 grit sandpaper. Of course, your pal, Houston's average post is more like a dull chisel on the same scale.
I think he meant "taken in" by Houston but I'm not sure on that one.
BobbyG: You take grave insult where none is meant:
1) I not infrequently say of myself "I can only parrot xyz and etc " referring to myself. I am not insulting myself. I am using an expression that conveys very well what I am trying to say.
2) You are wrong. I did *not* write "Booby". It never happened. When I first saw that you had written that, my initial reaction "Durn that spell checker!" because _*I*_ know absolutely that I would never have done so purposely.
I typically don't use the spell checker but I was catching up on ~six weeks of your 'stuff' in a couple hours and thought it expedient. I noted with irritation that it mangled "Leopold matrix" into Leopoldville matrix" and I figgered that it also mangled my typo of your name into a word that was in the dictionary but unfortunate in this context.
So I ran a global search with my newsreader Agent on my local copies of my posts. Didn't come up. So I ran a Google groups search on the newsgroup. Didn't come up. A best I can determine, until this post, you BobbyG are the only person to have ever written "Booby" in the context of your name. Go figger.
This reminds me of an incident which, in retrospect, is pretty funny. I was hosting a meeting and was busy getting ready for it and had lost track of the exact time when a colleague arrived.
Colleague: "Sorry I'm late".
Me: "Oh, I thought you were [a common, polite word that is the opposite of late]."
Colleague: (With look of cold disgust) "You can do better than that, Marc"
Me: (Look of puzzlement and mortification. I was ready for the meeting. I wasn't making excuses. And besides, I was doing folks a favor and well, I was almost ready to go. What the ...????"
Colleague: (Sheepish look... He prolly though that he was too harsh)
Marc: (Busted out laughing when I realized that his last name was exactly that word which is the antonym of 'late'.)
Colleague: (Back to looking annoyed, thinking I was laughing because I thought my joke funny.)
T'ainy rate, took my using non-verbal cues pointing with my finger to my head and shaking my head for him to realize that I was not trying to make a joke on his last name -- a joke that he'd probably heard way too many times before to have much patience with. In other words a case of hypersensitivity if you will. Oops! There he goes again. Durn me ;-) But it's *exactly* the right word! What to do ?
BoobyG: If it helps, here's ammo for you. Whaddya think I do when folks call me the H U L K ? It's a one letter typo too but not as easy to reproduce by accident as a double "oo" instead of double "bb" as in your case.
(Answer: Makes me turn Green. -- Oh Lordy, Lordy. Now what have I done ??? ;-)
BobbyG: There is no malice intended. Honest. We've gone through this before. ROTFL means that. A winky ;-) means < joke intended> -- to me at least ;-)
Let's try to stick to the substance of home automation, OK?
I think you're mistaken. Please check your post on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 at 23:13:00. You wrote: "Now it's taken BoobyG a while to get taken in by Dave's siren song and repeated jibes on this theme."
Considering you spelled his name Bobby in every other instance, it should be clear to anyone not looking for an excuse to get out of a losing battle that it was an unintentional typo. I also noticed Bobby voiced no objection when Houston made some clearly nasty "fish" references.
And why shouldn't Dave make such references? You frequently malign his character (as you do mine). You're a master in the use of innuendo, a liar, and a coward. I often wonder how it is you can live with yourself.
No, I didn't ;-) And I see now why I couldn't find it. I was searching on what BobbyG said I wrote, namely "Booby", which I did not write.
I mistakenly typed BoobyG, which is different word with more letters.
Most folks would not claim that writing "hello" is the same as writing "hell".
This sort of mistake can create flaws in home automation programs and rule sets . We can hope that the mistakes break the code or rules quickly and in an obvious way but sometimes they don't. It is an example of multiple mistakes that were hard to find that had pernicious and obviously unintended effects. I try to write BobbyG, not Bobby, because I thought/think that is what BobbyG prefers. So in typing a double "o" instead of double "b", and no "G" I made not one, but two mistakes.
Home automation systems can be very powerful and so coding and rule mistakes can have serious negative effects. This is why (as I understand it) CyberHouse's implementation of the Napco interface required disarming through Napco hardware, and didn't allow it through the CyberHouse software (there were work-arounds though).
This is arguably the most challenging part of creating a complex HA system. But there seems to be almost no discussion of coding or rule-making or rule-making tools or program logic in this newsgroup.
One of the things I miss most about CyberHouse was how rule making was handled. One could either write then out with a text editor or use a rule-building tool. The rule building tool had error-checking intrinsic to it (as does HomeSeer's). Typically I would create rules with the tool which all but eliminated typos and naming mistakes and then review the resulting ASCII code. For me at least, seeing each of the rules laid out line after line let me catch inconsistencies and suggested ways of streamlining and re-organizing just as in reviewing other kinds of computer code or written language does. With HomeSeer, I have yet to learn where to find a readable and editable file of the rules. I presume there is one. I'd like to review it too in case I have inadvertently created booby traps there too ;-)
ROTFL. Here it is! The infamous typo that BobbyG said was "Booby". Why am I not surprised that he can't program his Ocelot? BobbyG types typos while complaining about other folk's typos. The Hippo-speak shorthand for that is hyp_4.
No I don't.
Actually it is a conclusion based on what I have seen BobbyG write in this newsgroup including home automation topics.
Taking the second point first. I did not calculate a "typical" flight because I did what BobbyG asked, which was about a _specific_ flight. I did BobbyG the courtesy of answering the question he asked and now he indulges transparently in trying to change the question after I answer it.
What BobbyG would prefer is for me to parrot Dave's numbers. Not likely ;-) Dave scours the Internet for numbers and snippets that support his curmudgeonly habits (Remember his CFL "power factor" howler ? )
I took a non-stop, fully-filled Cincinnati to UK flight in one of the most efficient aircrafts in the sky and I showed the calculations in detail how my life-long transportation habits covered the equivalent of 1.5 round-trip flights per year. This is in a thread in which BobbyG munged the Subject by adding a ! to the front. Typo? The effect is to separate it from the rest of the thread.
Quote:
"Carbon offset: When one is unable or unwilling to reduce one's own emissions, Carbon offset is the act of reducing ("offsetting") greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. A well-known example is the planting of trees to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions from personal air travel" (Wikipedia)
But I _was_ willing and able and did reduce my own emissions for decades and still do as I showed. And although Delta was the first US airline to sell "offsets", they were not available until June after I returned.
So I so I _did _*also*_ donate 2.5 times the amount that the various "offset" enterprises charge for 8000 miles of flights to The Climate Trust
formatting link
so BobbyG has not the faintest, foggiest notion about what he writes. He posts baseless personal attack after sophomoric rant after false statement after muddled mess.
BobbyG wrote insulting things about the detailed published analysis of the power consumption of old refrigerators and said that he was going to regale us with specific data from his fridge. He measured it. And then refused to post it because the results confirmed that BobbyG was, as I wrote, wildly wrong in his original assertions. BobbyG continues to demonstrate this avert ion to real data and real facts and to actually walking the walk.
" >So how much of your yearly carbon allotment do you think you burned up on >the trip? You're good at numbers. That should be a cakewalk for you."
Yes, it was.
There are several concepts involved. BobbyG didn't actually tell me what my "yearly carbon allotment" was, and when I asked questions about what should be included he failed to answer. So I used the concept of "offset" a concept embraced by the Kyoto Protocol which elsewhere in your posts you seem to accept. This has direct application to home automation too because there are numerous areas where HA could play a critical role.
What BobbyG dishonestly fails to state is that I also did not account for the energy cost of building and maintaining the US interstate freeway system and the local roads and byways of the US.
And I also did not include the avoided energy cost of the 2-3 vehicles that would have needed to be built had I not conserved energy all my life as explained. Nor the triple car garage that was not needed. And so on.
BobbyG doesn't like that part so he indulges in pretending that it doesn't pertain. This is either profoundly dishonest or profoundly sophomoric, or both..
Fact is, all models are approximations, and are typically used as tools in answering questions. And as I wrote before, one starts model construction with a conceptual model. And one strives to build a model that can be useful
-- which typically means for which the data are known, and for which the equations can be written and solved. A more complex model that can't be solved is typically less helpful that a simpler model than can be solved.
This is true whether one is modeling transportation or the energy consumption of a house as one might want to do for home automation to determine whether a set-back thermostats or damper controls are energy and (or) cost effective.
It is basic algebra that if terms on both side of an equation are equal, they cancel. I didn't credit my avoided use of the interstate freeway and all the streets and byways of America because for this calculation, they were offset by constrtruction of runways and airports for the purposes of this model.
Moreover no airplane or airport will not get built if I didn't fly. But its a reasonable assertion that 2-3 cars actually did not need to be built, and dozens of tires not consumed and a double (triple, quadruple?) car garage not built because I didn't own a second car and didn't drive to work. FWIW, we have no garage now. The car I drive was purchased for used $3000 and now has ~180K miles it -- an example of the second R in (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)
BobbyG writes endlessly about what he doesn't know, so it's not surprising that he doesn't know this either.
definition: "Collateral: accompanying as secondary or subordinate".
When a secondary or subordinate component is small compared to the primary ones it can often be reasonably neglected, especially if its value is small compared to the uncertainty in quantitatively more important factors.
For example, if you ask me how much hydrocarbon my car burns, it is reasonable for most purposes to neglect the small amount of oil that a car in good condition burns.
And when terms on each side of an equation are identical, they can both be eliminated even with no knowledge whatsoever of their absolute value. So by making the useful assumption that the infrastructure and vehicle and maintenance costs for airplanes is the same as for cars, they drop out. This creates a model that can be solved. BobbyG would have me try to solve an intractable problem. How much of the carbon put in the air when the Jamestown settlers first cut a path through the forest that is now a highway should I include (for example?) BobbyG can't/doesn't answer much simpler questions.
But as I just wrote, I _also_ provided funding for 2.5 times the commercial rate for physical carbon offset for my flight.
So I was covered 1.5 + 2.5 = 4 times over, as it were (personal reduction + purchased offset).
I never claimed to be an expert in transportation models and I am not so sophomoric as to think that I am. But I gave a useful calculation that showed where the reduction was for the principal carbon cost for my trip (namely fuel).
One way to assess my calculations is to compare the same calculations by others. The following web-based car and flight calculations are largely black-box. Mine consists in explicit calculations using values that can be independently reassessed.
Vehicle savings/Flight expenditure
Hult in c.h.a (*) 233gal/150gal = 1.56 trips compensated for climatecare.org 2.63tonnes/1.77tonnes = 1.49 trips compensated for zerofootprint.org 2.37tonnes/1.89tonnes = 1.25 trips compensated for terrapass.org 4519lbs/3081lbs = 1.47 trips compensated for
(*) message : Subject: !Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:13:00 -0400, Marc_F_Hult message :
The agreement is remarkable. That my estimate is on the high side conforms with the fact the Delta flight that I took and that BobbyG asked me to calculate was more efficient than typical. Delta airlines has just emerged from bankruptcy and is determined to increase efficiency (IIRC ~35% of their total costs are for fuel).
So BobbyG's false claims don't withstand even the most casual scrutiny.
And the accuracy and usefulness of my calculation is supported by its close agreement with other entirely independent estimates.
And I cover my carbon footprint four times over by life-long personal life-style *and* physical carbon offset.
As I wrote,
"Now it's taken Bo[b]byG a while to get taken in";
I demonstrated quantitatively that the carbon was 'saved' 1.5 times over by _*my*_ walking and biking _*myself*_ and the estimate corroborated by three other carbon estimators/calculators.
And I _also_ contributed financially to creation of carbon offsets for 2.5 times the carbon cost.
So I -- not "someone else" -- covered the carbon (and much more) four times over in two ways.
BobbyG's intellectual dishonesty is appalling.
And the claim that it is "extravagant" unveils much about BobbyG.
For starters, I don't think that visiting your mom who just got out of a cast after her fall is "extravagant". It happens that she was born and raised, and schooled and fought a war and has lived in Europe for 70 of her 85 years. These are what George Monbiot calls "love miles". Swimming there is not an alternative. A gas-guzzling van like BobbyG has written that he uses to help his dad is of no help.
It is not financially "extravagant" because the offset from the 5,000 mile/year I did not drive has the additional benefit of saving (calculated using only 75% of government mileage reimbursement rate) of $1000 above and beyond the price of the ticket ($1800/year total).
There are additional benefits to _others_ of the reduced smog, and reduced road congestion, and reduced need for roads and maintenance . Is this somehow negated because I also personally benefited through better health because I exercised instead of vegging in a car? )
"Pee" ?
"Maintain a residence". Can I use that line on mom? "BobbyG of internets fame says that someone else maintains your home for you."
(Not that a stone house on a street with buildings from the 1390's with no central heating, no air conditioning of any kind, no garage, a 30-amp electrical service and water that until a few years ago only ran a few hours a day needs much "maintaining" compared to the "extravagance" of BobbyG's US home.) This is not an poorly-built extravagantly wasteful American house in a wasteful sprawling suburb.
When someone with normal basic intelligence strays so far from reality, my experience is that it is because emotions have taken over. In this case I think it is much more than a "I coulda had a V-8 moment" -- although if BobbyG had walked the walk as I have, he too coulda enjoyed the benefits my family reaps from it.
IMO, it is same emotion that torments BobbyG curmudgeonly prodder.
"Envy: Dante defined this as love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men of theirs. In Dante's Purgatory, the punishment for the envious is to have their eyes sewn shut with wire, because they have gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought lowly." (Wikipedia)
If BobbyG compares even his understanding of "schadenfreude" to this explanation of Dante's definition of envy, he might gain a little insight into why I wrote what I did and meant what I wrote, then and now. Hello, he might even understand it.
Part BobbyG's problem is that he's an Ugly American stuck at home.
Walking and biking and bussing to work, saving money and reducing environmental impact for decades on end so that you can go to see mom once a year is "resource hogging on a grand scale" ?
In my opinion, "extravagance" is living far from where you work, driving miles in a gas-guzzler, building extravagant car habitat and all the other trappings of US suburb life. These are also societal issues solutions to which are embodied in the concept of Smart Growth.
I walk this walk _and_ I talk this talk (literally) as a founder of the Smart Growth organization in our three-state metro area, as its President, and as one of many authors of its Smart Growth Guide. available at www s g c o a l i t i o n.org
"commoners"?
Part of what is speaking here is the envy and resentment of someone who wants what others have worked a lifetime to achieve.
I've had two bicycles in 43 years. The first one I bought in 1964 from the proceeds of delivering papers before dawn outside in the snow and cold of Minnesota winters. Pretty "common" before child labor laws ended it. The second one I bought in that amazing year 1972 from proceeds of driving a taxi during the graveyard shift while still in college. It still my only bike. BobbyG has not the faintest, foggiest notion of what the ... he talks about.
What BobbyG claims are "gross omissions" are nothing of the sort as I already showed. My calculations are astoundingly close agreement with calculations from three other source.
To BobbyG's permanent discredit, he also falsely claims I wrote that "putting mercury ... is going to solve the mercury problem." I did not and he knows it. What I have written repeatedly is that CFLs help with the energy issue in a way that _also_ *reduces* -- not "solves" -- _part_ of the mercury conundrum.
To BobbyG's permanent discredit, he also falsely claims that I "calculate[d] the projected mercury landfill load to the microgram using it". I did nothing of the sort. Ever. Anywhere.
No, I have not.
huh??
Yikes. Now BobbyG is gonna 'disappear" my children ?
This and BobbyG's insinuation that I have al z hei mer s has got to be the most vile personal verbal attacks anyone has leveled at me. There is deep shame in this for BobbyG.
huh? Mercury has "been a issue for me" since I measured environmental concentrations in late 70's and was peripherally involved in trying to puzzle out why fish in otherwise mostly pristine lakes in my state were loaded with mercury.
What might he be saying? That a environmental pollutant transport model that didn't also the into account "societal costs" is somehow "dishonest". So all environmental scientists and indeed environmental science are "dishonest" Wow.
To BobbyG's discredit, he tries to personally vilify me because I concur with the conclusions of the USEPA, CDC, FDA, USGS and comparable institutions in other counties, numerous states, PBS, and many environmental organizations.
BobbyG thinks he knows better than them all.
"He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him. " "He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him. "
To this for purposes of comp.home.automation we might add "If at first ..."
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.