When I first heard it this morning in UK on The Inquirer news site,I thought,holy s*** the EU decides it wants to regulate the very components I want to use inside my PC now.Talk about getting into my personal business.What business is it how powerful my PC is to someone other than me (the regulators). If anything,people like me will simply hasten up their plans to migrate to a country outside EU to escape these ridiculous regs.They banned traditional lightbulbs (non-CFL/LED),then they restrict certain supplements and now they're trying to regulate how powerful my GPU is.I mean come on.Whats next? I'm just happy I started to realise (better late than never) how useful freedom can be (esp in Uk where we're all convinced that the more regs,the better.I mean sure we need some regs but not so damn many lol)
Even though I find all this downright bizzare,we can find ways around it,question is will they start checking everything we import into EU too?
Topic: EU cripples future graphics cards (by regulating max. energy consumption) - page 2. (Read 3008 times)
October 16, 2012, 04:35:32 PM
October 16, 2012, 02:41:09 PM
Redder light is generally referred to as warmer, while bluer light is considered cooler. It's kind of backwards.
It took me a while to mentally reverse the frequency order of visible light. After all, infra-red is beyond red and it's hot so therefore more energy and higher frequency, right? Absolutely not
October 16, 2012, 12:59:03 PM
You know how difficult it was to even get a blue light? the guy won a Nobel prize for getting a blue light on LED. It was widely accepted as impossible, until the guy did it.
Got a source on that? Shuji Nakamura didn't win a Nobel Prize unless I've missed something lately. Also, don't get so defensive. I never said it was necessary to produce a single die with a white spectrum. You can use multiple different dies with different spectrums on one module to tune the color balance you want.Though to be honest, I don't know if we really want to simulate the sun's radiation with artificial light. In a few niche applications maybe but I think cooler light is probably friendlier for most uses, (possibly because it mimics the spectrum of fires?)
Redder light is generally referred to as warmer, while bluer light is considered cooler. It's kind of backwards. October 16, 2012, 12:34:32 PM
Though to be honest, I don't know if we really want to simulate the sun's radiation with artificial light. In a few niche applications maybe but I think cooler light is probably friendlier for most uses, (possibly because it mimics the spectrum of fires?)
October 16, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
Actually, LEDs are quite tricky. A bog standard LED works by an electron moving from one well definied energy state to another, emitting light at a fixed frequency. LEDs are, by default, monochromatic. Producing one that fools the eye into thinking it is white is fairly non-trivial (though obviously accomplished). Getting one that would produce black-body type radiation (at least in the visible range) is more work still.
With that said, I do believe LED or some as-yet-undiscovered technology is the future and that CFLs will be a historical curiosity in time.
You know how difficult it was to even get a blue light? the guy won a Nobel prize for getting a blue light on LED. It was widely accepted as impossible, until the guy did it.
October 16, 2012, 12:06:26 PM
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
Actually, LEDs are quite tricky. A bog standard LED works by an electron moving from one well definied energy state to another, emitting light at a fixed frequency. LEDs are, by default, monochromatic. Producing one that fools the eye into thinking it is white is fairly non-trivial (though obviously accomplished). Getting one that would produce black-body type radiation (at least in the visible range) is more work still.
With that said, I do believe LED or some as-yet-undiscovered technology is the future and that CFLs will be a historical curiosity in time.
October 16, 2012, 11:46:32 AM
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
Actually, LEDs are quite tricky. A bog standard LED works by an electron moving from one well definied energy state to another, emitting light at a fixed frequency. LEDs are, by default, monochromatic. Producing one that fools the eye into thinking it is white is fairly non-trivial (though obviously accomplished). Getting one that would produce black-body type radiation (at least in the visible range) is more work still.
With that said, I do believe LED or some as-yet-undiscovered technology is the future and that CFLs will be a historical curiosity in time.
October 16, 2012, 11:42:41 AM
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
2) sure, i know how they work
3) ok, so? what's the radiation of the sun? that's the one we should copy, not set a arbitrary standard and try to achieve that.
You said that incandescent bulb light was the most natural that we can achieve artificially. I'm disagreeing with you, I think we will be able to get closer to the natural solar spectrum with technologies other than incandescent bulbs. It has nothing to do with setting standards.
Eventually, we will find a better alternative.
October 16, 2012, 11:41:05 AM
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
2) sure, i know how they work
3) ok, so? what's the radiation of the sun? that's the one we should copy, not set a arbitrary standard and try to achieve that.
You said that incandescent bulb light was the most natural that we can achieve artificially. I'm disagreeing with you, I think we will be able to get closer to the natural solar spectrum with technologies other than incandescent bulbs. It has nothing to do with setting standards.
October 16, 2012, 11:37:21 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
How do you figure?
I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.
yes. Try to take a picture of a fluorescent bulb with your camera, you will notice that half of it is "off" even if you say it at full brightness trough your eye. The incandescent bulbs are constantly on, emitting the same radiation during the time, while these do not. They are shut down and up very fast.
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
2) sure, i know how they work
3) ok, so? what's the radiation of the sun? that's the one we should copy, not set a arbitrary standard and try to achieve that.
October 16, 2012, 11:34:15 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
How do you figure?
I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.
yes. Try to take a picture of a fluorescent bulb with your camera, you will notice that half of it is "off" even if you say it at full brightness trough your eye. The incandescent bulbs are constantly on, emitting the same radiation during the time, while these do not. They are shut down and up very fast.
That might be true for fluorescents, but it's not true of all technologies. A standard incandescent is limited by the fact that no filament material is capable of the ~5800K temperature needed to give the same black body spectrum as the sun. There's a lot more promise of getting a close to white light spectrum with something light LED lights than there is with incandescents.
October 16, 2012, 11:30:04 AM
This post makes no sense.
Oops. Fixed now. Any better?
October 16, 2012, 11:26:55 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
How do you figure?
I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.
yes. Try to take a picture of a fluorescent bulb with your camera, you will notice that half of it is "off" even if you say it at full brightness trough your eye. The incandescent bulbs are constantly on, emitting the same radiation during the time, while these do not. They are shut down and up very fast.
October 16, 2012, 11:23:04 AM
Here's what I have been observing also:
1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents
2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.
3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for incandescents
4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality incandescents
5) Cheap, low quality incandescents fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.
6) Statism does the fail thing once more.
7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
This post makes no sense. 1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents
2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.
3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for incandescents
4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality incandescents
5) Cheap, low quality incandescents fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.
6) Statism does the fail thing once more.
7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
October 16, 2012, 11:21:53 AM
Here's what I have been observing also:
1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents
2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.
3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for CFLs
4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality CFLs
5) Cheap, low quality CFLs fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.
6) Statism does the fail thing once more.
7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents
2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.
3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for CFLs
4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality CFLs
5) Cheap, low quality CFLs fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.
6) Statism does the fail thing once more.
7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
October 16, 2012, 11:19:43 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
How do you figure?
I don't know how he figures it, but most people complaint about fluorescent or white light bulbs saying they can't stand them, gives them headaches and so on.
October 16, 2012, 11:17:54 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
How do you figure?
October 16, 2012, 11:15:28 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
True.
And let's not forget that the incandescent bulb light is the most natural one that we can archive artificially.
October 16, 2012, 11:08:17 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
The alternative technology isn't there yet. That's why they have to ban them. By the time the alternative technologies are good enough, they would have been adopted anyway.
October 16, 2012, 10:42:30 AM
Why would you support a complete ban on them? If people want to buy them, what's wrong with that?
It's a complete waste of energy. Better technology already exists, no reason to continue using them.
Keen on deciding about others? This is bitcointalk, not some leftist forum lol
Jump to: