No worries... I'm sure dozens of other folks said the same thing, some with more info, and many providing less. Yours just happen to be +1'd by some random moderator, and get more exposure as a result.
BTW, I'm no lighting expert, either. I've had a modest interest in them for quite a while, but recently I've been going through and upgrading the flashlights and indoor lighting for myself and my family, so I've read-up a bit on LEDs lately. I was tracking down replacements for an outdoor HPS light just the other day.
Why would I trust anything Canadians say? Underneath those obsequious manners and maple syrup, they're planning to invade America.
Not to worry... US Beer makers have been anticipating the problem for decades, and tweaked the formula to be intolerable to Canadians. That should be enough to drive them back North, if they don't get distracted by the first hockey rink they come across...
Strange that you went out of your way to say this, yet failing to note that there's a huge difference between low-pressure sodium and high-pressure sodium, and also not mentioning the efficiency of LEDs.
In-the-lab, LEDs are the most efficient form of electric lighting, demonstrated at 254 lumens/watt last year... better than HPS, better than LPS, and better than any others. The efficiency you'll get with inexpensive retail bulbs is significantly lower, though bulbs based on moderately expensive emitters (like a Cree XM-L2 U3) can exceed 150lm/watt.
HPS lamps can get above 100 lumens per watt pretty easily, and low pressure sodiums can even get up to 200 lumens per watt. They've been able to get efficiency like that in labs for LED's, but for production fixtures it's not very common.
Some of the cheapest 120v LED bulbs out there (like the ones I just bought) are over 80 lumens per watt, so an easy match for HPS.
Production LEDs aren't as efficient as LPS, but you get vastly better color rendering in the trade, which has been the reason for many cities to use far, far less efficient street lights in the past, so LEDs are still a big upgrade by most measures.
Still, to get that much brightness, it's going to cost quite a lot of money.
Perhaps there's something corrupt going on in the street light market, I don't know. But in the consumer market, the expense of the ballast and bulb drives up the cost of HPS and LPS fixtures to about twice as much as consumer LEDs of the same output.
See how many cars at a typical gas station? Make each of those 5 minute fillups into 30 minute charges, across dozens of vehicles per station.
Completely false logic. The overwhelming majority of people will charge up at home the overwhelming majority of the time, off-peak and all, so minimal new electrical generating capacity will be necessary.
Is the minor per mile cost-savings of electric vehicles going to fund that widescale infrastructure overhaul?
Several times cheaper isn't "minor". Much of the infrastructure is already there. You keep paying for much more expensive infrastructure by driving a gasoline burning vehicle. And the cost of charging stations will be borne by the folks using them, not spread around, and they can decide if the per-KW price on the sign is worth it or not.
The EU could be running afoul of illegal restraint of trade with their actions on this law as well, so they're certainly playing a game of brinkmanship, and I think it's only fair that it costs them. They aren't going to jump in and violate some US-held patents, because the US had ample justification, while the EU will be seen as the villain, and probably have to answer to the WTO.
How do you believe that LATimes articles is counter evidence? Yes gun crime is down, but THERE IS PRACTICALLY NO GUN CONTROL IN PLACE right now. CA has some rules, but the assault weapons ban has been expired for many years. Show me what (new) gun control laws you think contributed to that, and get back to me...
Propofol is well over 20 years old, so patents are not in-force. And furthermore, patents are national, so the US government can step in and dissolve them if they feel it is important.
The market for lethal injection is tiny, and the complexity of making the drug is extremely high. So there's no huge opportunity.
We're not talking about the "lethal injection" market, we're talking about the entire US market. A short delay while US manufacturers get up to speed, and allow hospitals to stockpile the drug might be in order. But then go ahead with it, and watch the EU firms cut off a big chunk of their revenue for the drug, possibly going out of business, then the EU having to import it from the US.
Seriously, why does it not bother more Americans that by having the death penalty they find themselves in the illustrious company of countries such as Libya, Sudan, China, Iran, Iraq and North Korea (the "Axis of Evil") and Syria?
Because we're capable of rational thought, and don't believe in guilt by association, let alone something so tenuous as a similar institution that is used quite differently.
History is filled with examples of the most enlightened and humane jailing practices proving to be quite inhuman later on. I fail to see why peer-pressure is a good argument for or against a given practice.
Europe doesn't have magic fairy dust that lets them manufacture drugs nobody else can.
If they are going to cut-off the US market, that opens up a HUGE opportunity for any other manufacturer to step in and produce it, without ANY competition in the US.
World-wide, countries with fewer guns tend to have a lot fewer gun-related deaths, even if you remove accidents from the equation.
Some countries with lots of guns and high safety are that way because they keep their guns locked away - Switzerland, for example.
Of course GUN-related deaths go down with very few guns around, but that isn't interesting without overall crime rates. If we're just increasing stabbings more than we're reducing shootings, that incredible effort was entirely counter-productive.
And it's just circular logic to say that fewer guns is safer, except where lots of guns is also safe... but there's some other reason for that we won't bother to prove and which doesn't undermine our previous point.
But you need to think long-term, and when guns are difficult to get in general, most criminals won't have them, either. That's why you can't just outlaw them today and think everything will be fine, you need to come up with a transition plan.
I might believe that, if gun control attempts in the USA didn't consistently have the OPPOSITE effect in a large way. Crime rates go UP under gun bans, and go DOWN under relaxed concealed carry laws.
How do you plan to get those charging times down? Did you not notice the energy problem of having enough electricity at the charging station at the right amperage to do 30 minute charging?
No, I see no problem there at all... Lots of office buildings have higher-power service than we're talking about, and you're acting as if it's some sort of insurmountable goal. Sure, it's more power than a private home has available, but every shopping mall, and passenger airport in the country should be able to provide several parking spaces with the kind of power without trouble. Maybe your average fast food restaurants don't typically have that kind of power, but running a 3-phase circuit to them isn't terribly expensive.
Just because something is outside your realm of comfort does not mean it's actually a challenge. I should point out Tesla Supercharger stations are already very near the power requirements we're talking about. Also, the figures provided above are based on a poor understanding of AC power, and don't actually match reality.
No, you are playing the fool, posting links to opinion pieces. Just look at your links "...cast doubt on..." utter nonsense
Pretty much any news article is going to both provide facts and EXPLAIN what they mean. That does NOT make all news an opinion piece. The facts are black and white.
Someone already pointed to you the excellent Daily Show piece on the very successful results of the Australian ban
Australian gun crime rates were so low that the affect the crime rate since the restrictions are statistically insignificant at this point. It will take much more time to determine if the effects are real, or a short-term statistical anomaly that will swing the opposite way when the next mass-shooting happens there. That's what you get for using The Daily Show as a new source, when it is the real opinion piece.
ATSC is a private organization... They can do whatever they want. Plenty of the standards they've declared are just twisting in the wind, doing nothing and supported nowhere.
The FCC has NOT accepted H.264 encoding for broadcasts, and I seriously doubt they will in the foreseeable future, for all the reasons I've already listed.
Just give it up. Broadcast TV standards don't change overnight, and 4k is going to take huge effort, to provide a small improvement.
You're talking about making all those receivers people just went out and bough, completely useless. The government would have to PAY to replace them, just like they did with digital converter boxes a few years ago.
And don't tell me about satellite/cable companies! They lag BEHIND broadcasters, they do not take the LEAD... And internet service looks to be more bandwidth constrained than the airwaves for at least another decade or two.
In short, we had no improvements to NTSC for 56 years... You can expect to to get H.269 encoded, 4k resolution TV broadcasts right around the year 2065. So please STFU and stop whining about it. Go dust off your old laserdisc player, and dream your 3D 4k dreams in peace where we can't hear you sobbing.
Current Li-ion tech needs to improve by an order of magnitude to match gasoline's energy density per liter, and nearly two orders of magnitude to match gasoline's energy density per kg.
None of which matters, because you're ignoring conversion efficiency, and the weight and volume of the engine, transmission, cooling system, emissions control, thermal shielding, noise shielding, all the other supporting systems and knock-on effects necessary for using that gasoline to do useful work (versus just generating waste heat). Li-Ion batteries blow past gasoline once you factor those in. Li-Ion batteries fall behind only in COST, right now, which will continue to drop.
The only thing holding them back (assuming you can manufacture them in a closed-loop carbon cycle) are the thermodynamic efficiency limits of the carnot heat transfer cycle. And a fuel cell removes that impediment.
The ONLY THING holding the theoretic great solution back, is all of reality...
Electric cars have a place, but they are not long-distance travel cars and never will be.
That's utter nonsense. Once charging times get down to about 30 minutes for every 5.5 hours of driving, EVs will be able to exceed the limits of most human drivers, who have to stop for bathroom breaks and food anyhow, and might just as well plug-in to that charger in the parking space while they're doing that. Many truck stops have similar arrangements.
And the last time I checked, there are no electric-powered jet aircraft
No jets, but a few prop-driven electric aircraft. And it just so happens that airlines are switching some of their routes from jets back to turboprop designs, because of the greater fuel efficiency. A couple more price increases, and airlines wouldn't mind, at all, switching to solar-powered electric aircraft.
Must not have really caught on then. I've worked in a few factories and have never seen one. Lots of electrics and the rest propane.
Your anecdotes are NOT representative of reality. In fact according to the DoE, methanol fuel cells are more popular than battery powered forklifts, as they have longer operating times between refueling, shorter "recharge" times, lower maintenance costs, etc.
It's disingenous to suggest a gun control measure that affects a tiny part of an open country is indicative of any likely result of any future legislation that affects the whole of the nation.
Now you're just blatantly moving the goal-posts... Neither you nor anyone else mentioned nation-wide regulations specifically.
However, there ARE plenty of examples of those as well:
Where is the evidence of this sharp rise, where is proof of the correlation?
I linked to many, and you're just playing dumb and pretending it's not there. You can use any of those as a jumping off point to get even more facts and figures. But of course, you don't WANT to do that, and would rather feign ignorance.
It's all concrete facts. You can dismiss the arguments if you want, but you cant deny all the facts and figures, like DC's crime rate went up sharply under gun control.
Dismissing ALL of this extensive information out of hand just shows a MONUMENTAL bias on your part, and unwillingness of consider any challenging facts.
Slashdot Mirror
So call it a "compounding" facility, and run it with less government oversight than a fast-food stand... </sarcasm>
No worries... I'm sure dozens of other folks said the same thing, some with more info, and many providing less. Yours just happen to be +1'd by some random moderator, and get more exposure as a result.
BTW, I'm no lighting expert, either. I've had a modest interest in them for quite a while, but recently I've been going through and upgrading the flashlights and indoor lighting for myself and my family, so I've read-up a bit on LEDs lately. I was tracking down replacements for an outdoor HPS light just the other day.
I'd consider time-travel to be a bonus, rather than a drawback.
Not to worry... US Beer makers have been anticipating the problem for decades, and tweaked the formula to be intolerable to Canadians. That should be enough to drive them back North, if they don't get distracted by the first hockey rink they come across...
Holy run-on sentences, Batman!
What the hell did periods ever do to you, to make you hate them so very much?
Strange that you went out of your way to say this, yet failing to note that there's a huge difference between low-pressure sodium and high-pressure sodium, and also not mentioning the efficiency of LEDs.
In-the-lab, LEDs are the most efficient form of electric lighting, demonstrated at 254 lumens/watt last year... better than HPS, better than LPS, and better than any others. The efficiency you'll get with inexpensive retail bulbs is significantly lower, though bulbs based on moderately expensive emitters (like a Cree XM-L2 U3) can exceed 150lm/watt.
http://www.cree.com/news-and-events/cree-news/press-releases/2012/april/120412-254-lumen-per-watt
http://www.cree.com/led-components-and-modules/products/xlamp/discrete-directional/~/media/Files/Cree/LED%20Components%20and%20Modules/XLamp/Data%20and%20Binning/XLampXML2.pdf
Some of the cheapest 120v LED bulbs out there (like the ones I just bought) are over 80 lumens per watt, so an easy match for HPS.
Production LEDs aren't as efficient as LPS, but you get vastly better color rendering in the trade, which has been the reason for many cities to use far, far less efficient street lights in the past, so LEDs are still a big upgrade by most measures.
Perhaps there's something corrupt going on in the street light market, I don't know. But in the consumer market, the expense of the ballast and bulb drives up the cost of HPS and LPS fixtures to about twice as much as consumer LEDs of the same output.
Completely false logic. The overwhelming majority of people will charge up at home the overwhelming majority of the time, off-peak and all, so minimal new electrical generating capacity will be necessary.
Several times cheaper isn't "minor". Much of the infrastructure is already there. You keep paying for much more expensive infrastructure by driving a gasoline burning vehicle. And the cost of charging stations will be borne by the folks using them, not spread around, and they can decide if the per-KW price on the sign is worth it or not.
The EU could be running afoul of illegal restraint of trade with their actions on this law as well, so they're certainly playing a game of brinkmanship, and I think it's only fair that it costs them. They aren't going to jump in and violate some US-held patents, because the US had ample justification, while the EU will be seen as the villain, and probably have to answer to the WTO.
How do you believe that LATimes articles is counter evidence? Yes gun crime is down, but THERE IS PRACTICALLY NO GUN CONTROL IN PLACE right now. CA has some rules, but the assault weapons ban has been expired for many years. Show me what (new) gun control laws you think contributed to that, and get back to me...
Propofol is well over 20 years old, so patents are not in-force. And furthermore, patents are national, so the US government can step in and dissolve them if they feel it is important.
We're not talking about the "lethal injection" market, we're talking about the entire US market. A short delay while US manufacturers get up to speed, and allow hospitals to stockpile the drug might be in order. But then go ahead with it, and watch the EU firms cut off a big chunk of their revenue for the drug, possibly going out of business, then the EU having to import it from the US.
Because we're capable of rational thought, and don't believe in guilt by association, let alone something so tenuous as a similar institution that is used quite differently.
History is filled with examples of the most enlightened and humane jailing practices proving to be quite inhuman later on. I fail to see why peer-pressure is a good argument for or against a given practice.
Europe doesn't have magic fairy dust that lets them manufacture drugs nobody else can.
If they are going to cut-off the US market, that opens up a HUGE opportunity for any other manufacturer to step in and produce it, without ANY competition in the US.
Of course GUN-related deaths go down with very few guns around, but that isn't interesting without overall crime rates. If we're just increasing stabbings more than we're reducing shootings, that incredible effort was entirely counter-productive.
And it's just circular logic to say that fewer guns is safer, except where lots of guns is also safe... but there's some other reason for that we won't bother to prove and which doesn't undermine our previous point.
I might believe that, if gun control attempts in the USA didn't consistently have the OPPOSITE effect in a large way. Crime rates go UP under gun bans, and go DOWN under relaxed concealed carry laws.
No, I see no problem there at all... Lots of office buildings have higher-power service than we're talking about, and you're acting as if it's some sort of insurmountable goal. Sure, it's more power than a private home has available, but every shopping mall, and passenger airport in the country should be able to provide several parking spaces with the kind of power without trouble. Maybe your average fast food restaurants don't typically have that kind of power, but running a 3-phase circuit to them isn't terribly expensive.
Just because something is outside your realm of comfort does not mean it's actually a challenge. I should point out Tesla Supercharger stations are already very near the power requirements we're talking about. Also, the figures provided above are based on a poor understanding of AC power, and don't actually match reality.
Good for you. I have a brick...
Pretty much any news article is going to both provide facts and EXPLAIN what they mean. That does NOT make all news an opinion piece. The facts are black and white.
Australian gun crime rates were so low that the affect the crime rate since the restrictions are statistically insignificant at this point. It will take much more time to determine if the effects are real, or a short-term statistical anomaly that will swing the opposite way when the next mass-shooting happens there. That's what you get for using The Daily Show as a new source, when it is the real opinion piece.
But anything that disagrees with you...
ATSC is a private organization... They can do whatever they want. Plenty of the standards they've declared are just twisting in the wind, doing nothing and supported nowhere.
The FCC has NOT accepted H.264 encoding for broadcasts, and I seriously doubt they will in the foreseeable future, for all the reasons I've already listed.
While I'm no fan of 4K TVs... You're using a vastly oversimplified model of human vision:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230181&cid=18677583
Just give it up. Broadcast TV standards don't change overnight, and 4k is going to take huge effort, to provide a small improvement.
You're talking about making all those receivers people just went out and bough, completely useless. The government would have to PAY to replace them, just like they did with digital converter boxes a few years ago.
And don't tell me about satellite/cable companies! They lag BEHIND broadcasters, they do not take the LEAD... And internet service looks to be more bandwidth constrained than the airwaves for at least another decade or two.
In short, we had no improvements to NTSC for 56 years... You can expect to to get H.269 encoded, 4k resolution TV broadcasts right around the year 2065. So please STFU and stop whining about it. Go dust off your old laserdisc player, and dream your 3D 4k dreams in peace where we can't hear you sobbing.
None of which matters, because you're ignoring conversion efficiency, and the weight and volume of the engine, transmission, cooling system, emissions control, thermal shielding, noise shielding, all the other supporting systems and knock-on effects necessary for using that gasoline to do useful work (versus just generating waste heat). Li-Ion batteries blow past gasoline once you factor those in. Li-Ion batteries fall behind only in COST, right now, which will continue to drop.
The ONLY THING holding the theoretic great solution back, is all of reality...
That's utter nonsense. Once charging times get down to about 30 minutes for every 5.5 hours of driving, EVs will be able to exceed the limits of most human drivers, who have to stop for bathroom breaks and food anyhow, and might just as well plug-in to that charger in the parking space while they're doing that. Many truck stops have similar arrangements.
No jets, but a few prop-driven electric aircraft. And it just so happens that airlines are switching some of their routes from jets back to turboprop designs, because of the greater fuel efficiency. A couple more price increases, and airlines wouldn't mind, at all, switching to solar-powered electric aircraft.
Your anecdotes are NOT representative of reality. In fact according to the DoE, methanol fuel cells are more popular than battery powered forklifts, as they have longer operating times between refueling, shorter "recharge" times, lower maintenance costs, etc.
Now you're just blatantly moving the goal-posts... Neither you nor anyone else mentioned nation-wide regulations specifically.
However, there ARE plenty of examples of those as well:
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/opinion/oe-lott28
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-statistics-cast-doubt-on-weapons-ban
I linked to many, and you're just playing dumb and pretending it's not there. You can use any of those as a jumping off point to get even more facts and figures. But of course, you don't WANT to do that, and would rather feign ignorance.
It's all concrete facts. You can dismiss the arguments if you want, but you cant deny all the facts and figures, like DC's crime rate went up sharply under gun control.
Dismissing ALL of this extensive information out of hand just shows a MONUMENTAL bias on your part, and unwillingness of consider any challenging facts.