Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 08:59:53 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <0g888j12k8tis7gujsgoqnfiacc5h6rgqv@4ax.com>
References: <slrnv760nq.ve1.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> <a8k87j55bf3og8f358eo572d8nuk14fj18@4ax.com> <SyZcO.93189$qgY9.20273@fx17.iad> <gr9b7j1fqsof44cp9olru8k1vbq57cbp69@4ax.com> <bcidO.6168$ZwRb.3623@fx38.iad> <o4td7jhvbegl0qppoc96t4kk7fc7jgqah3@4ax.com> <v5ugue$14hdg$2@dont-email.me> <f2n58jpr4ouah9saj01tv6q6rtfeajjpi6@4ax.com> <XEBgO.165159$qgY9.53953@fx17.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:59:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="725e97a5153f3bd14a2f5a155eeb2b27";
	logging-data="1800202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194o5AYOKaUIzBHbRCrEACObgwvKoL1sHY="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8iXNpAIkqlHi+gbODVBsc+drrds=

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:26:15 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:11 +0100, Robert Carnegie
>
>>
>>BTW, the two main bulbs (one now an LED, the other a CFL that has been
>>going for about 3.5 years per my records) are on during the day and
>>during the night (respectively). So between them, one or the other is
>>always on. So that is an average of 12 hours/day. Since 12 =3D3D 3 x 4,
>>7yrs/(12 hrs/3hrs/day) =3D3D 7/4 hrs =3D3D 1.75 years in realistic use.=
 The
>>CFL, at least, is doing much better. And the LED is meeting
>>expectations.
>>
>>If they want their claims to be valid, this is what they need to do:
>
>https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/lsrc_colorshift_apr2017.=
pdf
>
>
>    LED packages rarely fail abruptly (i.e., instantaneously stop =
emittin
>    light), but rather experience parametric failures such as =
degradation
>    or shifts in luminous flux, color point (chromaticity coordinates),
>    color rendering index (CRI), or efficacy. Of these parametric =
shifts,
>    lumen depreciation has received the most attention because it was
>    previously thought that the degradation of lumen output of the LED
>    source itself would be the prime determinant of lifetime for the
>    completed product. While it is now understood that this is not
>    the case, lumen maintenance is still used as a proxy for LED lamp or
>    luminaire lifetime ratings, largely due to the availability of
>    standardized methods for measuring and projecting LED package lumen =
depreciation.
>
>
>    Many researchers have put a great deal of effort into devising a
>    way to project the time at which L70 will be reached for an LED
>    package in a luminaire, and IES has documented a forecasting =
procedure,
>    IES TM-21,3 which uses the LM-80 test data for the lumen maintenance
>    projections (a minimum of 6,000 hours of test data is required). The
>    LM-80 data (luminous flux vs. test hours) for the LEDs tested is =
averaged
>    and an exponential curve fit is applied to the data; the results of =
th
>    curve fit are used to calculate a lumen maintenance lifetime =
projection.
>    This technical memorandum stipulates that any projection may
>    not exceed a set multiple (depending on sample size statistics) of
>    the actual hours of LM-80 testing data taken, which helps avoid =
exaggerated claims.
>
>    It should be noted that LM-80 measurements are taken with the LED =
packages
>    operating continuously in a temperature-controlled environment, =
where the
>    solder point and ambient air temperature are at equilibrium. This =
does not
>    necessarily reflect real-world operating conditions, so there may =
not be a
>    perfect match between predictions based on laboratory test results =
and
>    practical experiences with lamps and luminaires in the field. =
Nevertheless,
>    lumen maintenance projections can help sophisticated users compare =
products,
>    as long as their limitations are properly understood.
>
>    When LEDs are installed in a luminaire or system, there are many
>    additional factors that can affect the rate of lumen depreciation
>    or the likelihood of catastrophic failure. These include temperature
>    extremes, humidity, chemical incursion, voltage or current =
fluctuations,
>    failure of the driver or other electrical components, damage or =
degradation
>    of the encapsulant material covering the LEDs, damage to the =
interconnections
>    between the LEDs and the fixture, degradation of the phosphors, and =
yellowing
>    of the optics. In addition, abrupt semi-random short-term failures =
may be
>    observed due to assembly, material, or design defects. More =
information on
>    system level lifetime can be found in LSRC's LED
>    Luminaire Lifetime: Recommendations for Testing and Reporting.
>
>Much more useful information in the aforecited URL.

No amount of weasel-words and bumpf can serve to do anything but
confirm my position.

And they are venturing near the "10 million unknown and unknowable
causes" cited by idiots trying to prove that the Universe is fully
deterministic. Which are an atheist's replacement for the hordes of
teeny-tiny devils and angels once believed to be endlessly flitting
about us and influencing our decisions. This is not credible in any
form. Well, quantum mechanics excepted, perhaps.
--=20
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"