Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!ereborbbs.duckdns.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Robert Carnegie Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:11 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 69 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:11:11 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebfcc837a0f8ab2a38455b1d8a9d94d5"; logging-data="1197488"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187kuazQIjlt0g/p71Cj0tS7ZDN4iNogXU=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kBN1mr5XGKXahtJPFgB+nl/r+70= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 4019 On 22/06/2024 17:26, Paul S Person wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:51:19 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) > wrote: > >> Paul S Person writes: >>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:21:54 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Paul S Person writes: >>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power, >>>>>> but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is >>>>>> happening. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm talking of course about artificial illumination. (Yes, again.) >>>>>> Not sexy? Too bad. >>>>>> >>>>>> Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed >>>>>> itself by dying. I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips >>>>>> LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same >>>>>> light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which >>>>>> amounts to some 50 years of average use. >>>>> >>>>> Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt. >>>> >>>> Based on calculations. For example, the resistors in >>>> the product have certain characteristics such as resistance, >>>> tolerance, working temperature, power rating, etc. Included in that = >>> is >>>> a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part >>>> is used within specifications. >>>> >>>> One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a >>>> product statistically based on that per-component data >>>> accounting for effects that degrade the data such >>>> as operating outside specification, etc. >>> >>> The map is not the terrain. >> >> The goal is to create a statistical certainly. Obviously >> any one bulb might be defective, but the majority >> of bulbs will survive for the specified period. >> >> >> >>> But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims. >> >> I did no such thing. > > Actually, you did. > > You confirmed that the length-of-life claims have no basis in how long > they actually last but merely in projections based on assumptions and > (have now added above ) are only true in the statistical sense -- as > opposed to the real-world sense. > > The truth is that, unless everyone keeps strict records, we do not > have and never will have a true picture of how long they last under > various conditions. It's science. Science is pretty good stuff. It's probably also conservative - in the sense of under-claiming what is delivered. In the political sense, not wasting energy is the opposite of conservative.