Re: N:Vision CFL's

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:460658e6.837921406@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>      http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/an/4042.pdf
> >
> >PDF?  I don't support no stinkin' proprietary document formats when you
> >consider all the effort that's gone into the Web to make it free from
such
> >lunacy.  (-:  But I've read about the problem elsewhere.  It threatens to
> >become an issue, as you note, only if there's a large scale conversion to
> >CFLs.  Australia's wholesale switchover will probably tell us soon enough
if
> >it's a serious issue.
>
> For commercial users, PDF makes sense because they are not as easily
> tampered with as other formats. OpenOffice makes creating them easy (and
> free) while Adobe supplies a free reader.

They're completely over-used, IMHO, by folks too lazy to create an HTML
page.   PDF's are designed for mythical beings who possess with two,
vertically oriented, specially oversized monitors running side by side from
a dual head graphics card. I always feel like I am wearing blinders when I
read them because if I increase the magnification to the level where I can
read the print, then I have to pan and scan like a madman.  If I truly NEED
the information, I'll lower my security settings and DL one (and usually
print it out!).

Programs that run from within the browser are security risks.  If you allow
Flash to run, or PDF's to open, you're at greater risk than if you hadn't.
All of that crap, and especially Active-X and Java are disabled on my
machine.  It makes some sites hard to use, but it absolutely ends all
pop-ups, drive bys, etc.  The latest version of FireFox surprised me when it
allowed some bozo popup to display without asking as soon as the download
had completed.  Apparently the DL had reset my security settings downward
(what an EXCEPTIONALLY bad idea for a security upgrade!).

> Here's the pertinent paragraph...
>
> "... a standard 115VAC wall socket should be able to deliver the
> nominal 15A to a common load.
> In similar conditions, a "non-corrected power factor" SMPS (typical value
of
> 0.6) drops the available current from 15A to only 9A. For example, from
one
> wall socket, four 280W computers each equipped with P.F.C. can be supplied
> instead of two with no P.F.C."
>
> It will be a bigger problem for Australia than for the US. Australia uses
> 240V so typical currents are half what we see and wire sizes are smaller.
> That's why Europe has already mandated Power Factor Correction for PC
power
> supplies.
>
> The ST paper exaggerates. While the PSU may be rated for 280W, actual
usage
> is probably much less but it still illustrates the issue. My most power
> hungry PC (300W PSU) uses 75-80W depending on activity. Its PF is 0.63.
3-4
> CFLs will have the same effect as the PC.


> I think the utilities are sandbagging us. Once residences exhibit lower
PFs
> they will petition for rate increases or PF based surcharges.

If there happen to be extra sunspots in a particular year, they will
petition for rate increases!  Our local Public Service Commission was gutted
of consumer advocates and padded with former industry executives.  The fix
is in for us little guys.  We can't hope to win if the game's that crooked
from the get-go.

Given what happened in CA with deregulation, I'm stunned that so many states
are looking to it as some sort of salvation.  True competition when there's
only one product conduit?  That's even more laughable than CATV competition.
At least there, you have FIOS and satellite options.

--
Bobby G.