It is a special day today

[~BD~]

I don't think you should keep this important information away from those
who really need to know, Mr Foldes.

I had geat difficulty with one word you used (an odd one for a retired
electrician, I thought) but I found an answer here
http://www.homogenic.net/

What you actually said:-

"As a retired electrician I can confidently tell you that leaving
something electrical on all day will use less energy then opening and
closing it 3 times
Leaving the computer on all the time will not do harm to the system and
will use up less energy.

My servers are on 24\365 with the exceptions when I insert or take out
Hard Drives or upgrade hardware"

I wonder if others here agree with you. On the other hand, a computer is
of no use to a botnet if it is switched off, is it?

Dave

 

[Rabbit]

A computer is of no use to a botnet if the said computer is not
compromised - JERK!

 

[Anteaus]

There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the energy-usage of
electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the typical
users' utter ignorance of such matters.

One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy' when
starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory keeps
getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not unlike a
spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.

On one site of mine the safety guy put-up notices telling users to switch
off the network printers because (he had been told) they "Used as much
electricity overnight as it took to print 1,000 sheets"

The manufacturer's manual comfirmed that these printers used something like
3W in standby, a totally insignificant amount.

The outcome was that the server print-queues overflowed as a result of users
forgetting to switch the printers back on, and an engineer had to be sent to
look at the server to find out why. The cost of this in terms of road-fuel
energy would have printed the entire text of War and Peace. And, then some.
;-)

 

[~BD~]

Thanks for your post, Anteaus. I enjoyed your amusing tale about the
printers!

I'd be grateful if you would clarify. Is Peter Foldes statement correct
in your opinion?

Thanks,

Dave

 

[M.I.5¾]

There are unbelieveable amounts of rubbish written about the energy-usage
of
electrical appliances. Most are total snake-oil and rely on the typical
users' utter ignorance of such matters.

One is the myth that fluorescents use 'prodigial amounts of energy' when
starting from cold, so they should be left on all day. This theory keeps
getting repeated and repeated, so it acquires a life of its own, not
unlike a
spoken version of an Internet worm. Yet, a simple wattmeter test (which
anyone can do just by counting the revolutions of their ordinary house
electricity-meter) will dismiss it as bunk.

One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note, they do
take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a few hundreds
of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy is negligible.

But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of the
tube (for technical reasons). This increases the running costs by virtue of
the replacement costs (and manufacture of the new tube equires energy).
There comes a point where if you turn the light on and off frequently
enough, it actually is cheaper (for the end user) to leave it on permanently
(though not for the usually cited reason), and environmentally cheaper as
well considering the manufacturing energy and that the mercury ends up in
landfill.

 

[Peter Foldes]

One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note,
they do take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a
few hundreds of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy
is negligible.

But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of
the tube (for technical reasons). This increases the running costs by
virtue of the replacement costs (and manufacture of the new tube
equires energy). There comes a point where if you turn the light on
and off frequently enough, it actually is cheaper (for the end user)
to leave it on permanently (though not for the usually cited reason),
and environmentally cheaper as well considering the manufacturing
energy and that the mercury ends up in landfill.

I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said to
him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".

He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
using frustrating?

Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of Dave's
deceased son.

I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd been
banned:-

Reckon he finally figured it out?

Sure was dense for a supposedly English gentleman...

 

[~BD~]

I'm pretty sure that BoaterDave first became suspicious when I said to
him - "I do understand your frustrations when you lose a child".

He seemed to feel that a good guy would have used words like .....
awful, dreadful, heart-rending, tragic, terrible. What's wrong with
using frustrating?

Maybe that's why it's a special day today - it's the birthday of
Dave's
deceased son.

I'm sure he's also seen this item, posted in Annexcafe after he'd been
banned:-

You are correct, Mr Peter Foldes. Thick as two short planks, eh?!!

Not sure how to take your comment about Chamberlain, though. Would you
care to explain?

Dave

 

[Peter Foldes]

LOL. And nothing gets past you. I do not know who you are answering to , but it sure
is not me. Now you see my name and you do not even check the posting Properties
anymore. Dave stop your silliness and get a life already

 

[~BD~]

" ....... and get a life already!" ??? So you *are* Jewish.

I don't mind that at all!

You might like this
http://www.aish.com/chanukahbasics/chanukahbasicsdefault/Is_It_the_Jewish_Christmas$.asp

Dave

 

[Bill in Co.]

One needs to put this in context. It is not the starting up of the
fluorescent lights that takes large amounts of energy. As you note, they
do
take a bit more power to start, but it is only required for a few hundreds
of milliseconds at most, so for the end user, the energy is negligible.

But, every time you start a fluorescent light, it shortens the life of the
tube (for technical reasons).

Also true for incandescent lights, due to the sudden current onrush (a cold
tungsten filament has much lower resistance than when its hot, so the
initial current onrush is pretty high, contributing to the filament's
failure mode).

But I don't know if the overall lifetime of an incandescent light bulb (like
a typical 60 W bulb) is shortened more by this than it would be by leaving
it on continuously. I suppose that would depend on how often it's turned
on and off. Like if it's only turned on and off once or twice a day, who
knows? (I'm sure someone has the data on this, though)

 

[none]

" ....... and get a life already!" ??? So you *are* Jewish.

I don't mind that at all!

You might like this
http://www.aish.com/chanukahbasics/chanukahbasicsdefault/Is_It_the_Jewish_Christmas$.asp

Dave

Now you are challenging people on things they have never said. Take a
pill and calm down for heavens sake.

 

[~BD~]

Now you are challenging people on things they have never said. Take a
pill and calm down for heavens sake.

Maybe there was too much for you to read through, Richard!

See what Andrew Taylor said, here:

I've been asking Mr Foldes to say a few words about the kind of business
he's in for nearly three years, but he's *very* secretive about it.
Maybe he'll tell *you* if you ask him!

If it's Kosher, that's fine. I'm only concerned with bad guys!

Have a great Christmas and may God bless you.

Dave

 

[M.I.5¾]

Also true for incandescent lights, due to the sudden current onrush (a
cold tungsten filament has much lower resistance than when its hot, so the
initial current onrush is pretty high, contributing to the filament's
failure mode).

But I don't know if the overall lifetime of an incandescent light bulb
(like a typical 60 W bulb) is shortened more by this than it would be by
leaving it on continuously. I suppose that would depend on how often
it's turned on and off. Like if it's only turned on and off once or
twice a day, who knows? (I'm sure someone has the data on this, though)

Urban Myth.

A filament bulb's life is not shortened in the slightest by switching it on
(and in those applications where they are regularly switched on an off,
there is no reduction in life (traffic lights or even Belisha beacons for
example). Although for most constructions of lamp, when it is time for it
to die, switch on is the most likely time it will happen if it is switched
on and off a lot. The Underwriter's Laboratory have recently done
considerable research into this (though it was directed mainly at the
stupendously short lives Compact Fluorescent Lamps can have when they are
switched on and off*).

* Basically they discovered what electrical engineers already knew: that the
claimed 8000 or 15,000 hour life is only obtainable if the lamps are run
permanently powered. If they are switched on and off, the life is more
accurately expressed in power cycles, typically 300-700 cycles (meaning that
in many applications they will have a shorter life than the filament bulb
they replace). The UL also confirmed that the claimed light output and
efficiency gain is an artificially inflated figure based on a 'design' light
output and not the real light output and that they dim rapidly as they age.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Urban Myth.

A filament bulb's life is not shortened in the slightest by switching it
on
(and in those applications where they are regularly switched on an off,
there is no reduction in life (traffic lights or even Belisha beacons for
example).

I don't think it's a myth at all. It's the basic physics of metal fatigue:

The sudden expansion and stress on the metal tungsten filament, due to the
huge current inrush when the filament is cold (because it has a very low
resistance then), directly contributes to metal fatigue. One cause of any
metal fatigue is sudden expansion and/or contraction.

As I recall, when I used an old analog ohmmeter (a Simpson) to measure the
cold resistance (obviously) of a 60W incandescent bulb, it was around 20
ohms, or so.
So, on 120 VAC, the initial current surge is around 6.0 Amps!! Obviously
after the filament has warmed up to its normal operating temperature a few
seconds later, it drops to its normal value, of around 0.5A.

Although for most constructions of lamp, when it is time for it
to die, switch on is the most likely time it will happen if it is switched
on and off a lot.

That is true too. Actually, even if it isn't switched on and off "a lot".
I believe it happens more often than not, even if it's only switched on and
off once a day.

The Underwriter's Laboratory have recently done
considerable research into this (though it was directed mainly at the
stupendously short lives Compact Fluorescent Lamps can have when they are
switched on and off*).

Fluorescent lamps, however, are *completely different*! (obviously)

 

[Paul Adare]

I don't think it's a myth at all. It's the basic physics of metal fatigue:

As interesting as this discussion maybe to some, it has nothing at all to
do with any of the news groups to which it is being cross-posted. Can you
please take this to email, or find a more appropriate location to carry on
this discussion?

Thanks.

 

[~BD~]

I do David. As we say in England, "I speak as I find". I have ne
reason whatever to think that Peter is one of your 'bad guys'. I also
find your hounding of him a little off-putting, worrying (for you) and
very distasteful. I would expect better of an English gentleman who
has served his country in the Royal Air Force.

I have NEVER served in the RAF Andrew! My surviving son has - albeit
that he is retiring (early) as a Squadrn Leader at the end of this
month.

I know very few people if any that use a computer powered up for 3
hours a day. In that scenario, it is bound to save energy, even more
if they had 3 one minute sessions, or 3 thirty second sessions!

No-one mentioned computers specifically in this regard - PF said
"something electrical"

I don't ever recall calling Peter a 'scientist', computer or
otherwise, and have never thought of him as a scientist. To my mind a
scientist sits in a laboratory in a white coat and does experiments
with 'stuff'. I know of his computer knowledge and I know his
business. I have told you, reminded you, at least three times, but you
choose to ignore what I say. To put it politely, you are pig-headed in
the extreme.

The mind plays tricks on everyone Andrew. I'm confident that you said so

Peter had a boy late in life with a new partner, so what? People do
this all the time.

Where did that come from? I've never heard tell of that before. I do
recall that his *daughter* called for help on Annexcafe when Peter
Foldes was at death's door.

He himself mentioned not long ago that he had been rescued from a
concentration camp at the age of four ( He may have said Dachau, but
there were many, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_camps_of_Nazi_Germany
)

The last part of your paragraph is sheer fantasy, and in my mind is
laughable and for you, your possible downfall, as it is libellous. Do
you realise that the printed word on the Internet which defames
someone and causes them damage in business or personal life is
enforcable through the courts. You state the you think he was/is
involved in Cybercrime and now you wonder he is semetic. I don't think
Peter has anything to do with Jews or Israel, and certainly nothing to
do with Cybercrime, other than to actively help people who have
problems with their computer for whatever reason, including prevention
of crime, viruses, hackware and malware. David, as you have been told
many times, you really do need to find an new interest in life. This
one man crusade has the makings of ruining your life. One day when you
have 10 hours to spare Google 'Les Kellett'.

Only in you mind David, only in your mind.

My concern is to identify anyone who is involved, in any way, with those
around the world who may wish to kill us, Andrew.

If you believe that the bad guys, including Islamic terrorists, are
*not* using the Internet, it is /you/ who live in cloud-cukoo land!

I'll look up Les Kellet after Christmas. I'm off now to spend time with
my family.

*You* are a good man, Andrew. May God bless you and yours.

Happy Christmas!

Dave

PS As I've told you before, just like 007 *my* sevice was in the Royal
Navy!

 

[~BD~]

It need be of no concern to you, Mr Adare. Just do not read the
messages!

Perhaps you are irritable because

a) You are still far from home so close to Christmas, or

b) Once again you cannot sleep and are posting in the middle of the
night

(You never did tell me what time it would be in Canada at the time of
your post(s) - today's being at 0845 GMT)

To any of the good guys reading here (most of you I'm sure of that!) I
wish you and your families a very Happy Christmas and a peaceful 2009.

Dave

 

[Rabbit]

Much to your chagrin, Mr Foldes would likely tell "anyone" about his line of
business - except YOU!

Why, in gods name, would you comment on something that someone said in
another forum/news group - without referencing the original text at the time
of YOUR comment? We are not mind readers, nor do we frequent the places
where you hang out - on purpose I may add.

Maybe you really do need that med!

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "~BD~" <[email protected]>

| It need be of no concern to you, Mr Adare. Just do not read the
| messages!

| Perhaps you are irritable because

| a) You are still far from home so close to Christmas, or

| b) Once again you cannot sleep and are posting in the middle of the
| night

| (You never did tell me what time it would be in Canada at the time of
| your post(s) - today's being at 0845 GMT)

| To any of the good guys reading here (most of you I'm sure of that!) I
| wish you and your families a very Happy Christmas and a peaceful 2009.

| Dave


Paul is correct !

Real discussions don't belong in a tests groups and this CERTAINLY is Off Topic in;
microsoft.public.security and microsoft.public.security.virus

Stop abusing the News Service !

 

[M.I.5¾]

I don't think it's a myth at all. It's the basic physics of metal
fatigue:

The sudden expansion and stress on the metal tungsten filament, due to the
huge current inrush when the filament is cold (because it has a very low
resistance then), directly contributes to metal fatigue. One cause of
any metal fatigue is sudden expansion and/or contraction.

As I recall, when I used an old analog ohmmeter (a Simpson) to measure the
cold resistance (obviously) of a 60W incandescent bulb, it was around 20
ohms, or so.
So, on 120 VAC, the initial current surge is around 6.0 Amps!! Obviously
after the filament has warmed up to its normal operating temperature a few
seconds later, it drops to its normal value, of around 0.5A.

Then you tell the Underwriter's Laboratory that their results are completely
wrong. Practical usage also shows that there is no life reduction with
frequent switching in spite of what intuition might tell you. Incidentally,
metal fatigue has nothing to do with it. Metal fatigue is a phenomenon that
occurs when metal is subject to mechanical load stress not thermal cycling.
Tungsten, like steel (but unlike aluminium), has a wide load stress range
over which it will never fatigue.