Pem’s Tech Blog

My previous post on energy savings per light bulb really left me wanting more data on how number of times turning a light on/off affects the operating life of the bulb / lamp.  Maybe the additional energy isn’t much, but what about the wear / stress on the bulb’ and its operating life?  So I found another source of info:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/lighting_daylighting/index.cfm/mytopic=12280

It prefaces that the (exact number of hours that switching lights on and off reduces the total operating life depends on the type of light and how many times it is switched on and off), and gives a generalization for two very common types of lights:

Incandescent lights: 85% to 90% of the energy is turned to heat (not light), and the actual bulb is cheap (relative to the cost of energy), so they should be turned off when not needed – especially if you’re just in another room.

Fluorescent lights: relative to incandescent lights: the lamps cost more, lifetime is reduced more per off/on cycle, and startup time uses more energy.  The energysavers.gov link claims that a good estimate may be to turn it off if you’re leaving the room for more than 15 minutes (this number may be smaller if you have a very low cost of energy).  Apparently this can also vary based on both bulb and the ballast.

In some apartment complexes, they will replace the main common area large fluorescent tube lights (and ballast) for free.  For such a situation, this would mean to use the 23 sec number (from the Discovery Channel MythBusters test in my previous post) (energysavers.gov said 5 sec) rather than the 15 min number.

Here’s another source, US Energy Star:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

Maybe it’s really the same source, but in any case, here it also says, for compact fluorescent lamps (CFL’s), to maximize the lifetime savings and effectiveness of your CFLs by keeping them on for 15 minutes or more at a time.

It also mentions that CFL’s should avoid extreme temperatures (hot or cold) since that can reduce lifetime, and being in an enclosed fixture with no airflow might cause it to generate heat and reduce its lifetime.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/29 (Thursday, October 29, 2009) :: Electricity :: No Comments »

I Google’s this and ran into a Discovery Channel MythBusters video:
http://vodpod.com/watch/47235-mythbusters-lightbulb-experiment

I noticed that in this video that they used the Kill A Watt P3 device, which I also use.  They used the Kill A Watt P3 to measure average watts over 1 hour for each bulb in steady state: incandescent at 90 W, compact fluorescent at 10 W, halogen 70 W, metal halide 60 W, LED 1 W, fluorescent tube at 10 W.

Then they used a digital-based computer sampling oscilloscope, to measure the watts during turn-on.  There is a slight increase in watts as the filament warms up, but it’s not very long.  Their estimate/calculation said that you only save electric bill money by leaving the light on (versus turning it off when you leave the room), if the time (between when you turn it off then back on) is: incandescent at 0.36 sec, compact fluorescent at 0.015 sec, halogen at 0.51 sec, metal halide at ??? sec, LED at 1.28 sec, fluorescent tube at 23.3 sec.  (They skipped the number for the metal halide bulb).

Thank God, at the end of the video, they at least mentioned the other obvious cost question – how does startup affect the longevity of the bulbs?  They tested this by putting the light bulbs on a 2 minute timer, to have them turn on/off for 6 weeks.  At the end of the 6 weeks, every one of the light bulbs burned out, except the LED light bulb.  6 weeks * 30 times per hour * 24 hours/day * 7 days per week = 30,240 times.  Which they claim correlates to over 5 years of turning lights on/off in a regular household.  I wish they took it further, and compared it to a 15 min cycle, a 5 min cycle, a 30 second cycle, and a 1 sec cycle.

In summary, this very strongly argues that it’s generally better to turn off a light when you leave the room, at least in terms of energy savings.

However, it also argues that it’s not healthy to repeatedly turn the light on/off, in terms of longevity (lifetime of the bulb) (operating life of the light).  So this really left me wanting more data on how number of times turning a light on/off affects the operating life of the bulb.  Especially if we consider home automation, such as a motion sensor or a remote control or a light timer.

Finally, let’s not forget there may be some other factors.  For example, light use might in some way affect security / safety (like if having all your lights off increases chance of a burglary attempt), or eye health / comfort (if the light is too bright, and it hurts or damages your eyes), or distraction (from bright light).  For example, if you stare at a screen most of the day (like I do), then it might be healthier for your eyes to have background / ambient lights on and your monitor’s brightness down (warning: I didn’t research this in much detail yet).

I recall a story from the original “Home Alone” movie where the burglars decide to rob a house because they know the owners are on vacation because their light turns itself on via a timer at the same time every night.  Anyway, household security is important, but it’s not the focus of this current topic.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/29 (Thursday, October 29, 2009) :: Electricity :: No Comments »

Energy cost for a house/apartment is typically done in KWH, aka kilowatts hours, aka kilowatts * hours.  For example, if we have a 60 watt light bulb on for 1 hour, then that’s 60 KWH; which at 11.5 cents per KWH is $0.0069 per hr.  Or, if we have five 60 watt light bulbs on for 24 hours, then that would be 5 bulbs * 60 watts/bulb * 24 hours * 1/1000 watts/kilowatt = 7.2 KWH, which at 12 cents per KWH would cost 7.2 * $0.12 = $0.864 = 86.4 cents per day, which times 30 days/mo would be $25.92 for the month.  If the light bulbs were only on 8 hours/day, then it would be $25.92 * 8/24 = $8.64/mo, for those 5 light bulbs.

Here’s a real example of an apartment electric utility bill for 1460 KWH used in one month:
6.00 : Customer Charge
17.75 : Energy Charge at $0.0355  per KWH, for the first 500 KWH
75.07 : Energy Charge at $0.0782  per KWH, for everything over 500 KWH, in my case this was 960 KWH
53.33 : Fuel Charge   at $0.03653 per KWH, for 1460 KWH
1.52 : sales tax
Total Charges: $153.67, plus additional fees for solid waste, drainage, and street service (for driving a car), made the total $169.60

Notice that usage is bracketed (similar to federal income tax brackets).  In a house/apartment that used 1460 KWH last month, it’s reasonably safe to assume that a small change in KWH usage is not going to put us below the base 500 KWH.

So the important number here is:
(everything over 500 KWH) + (fuel charge) = (cost per KWH)

For my example, this is:
$0.0782 per KWH + $0.03653 per KWH = $0.11473 per KWH

However, let’s also account for the tiny $1.52 sales tax:
153.67 / (153.67 – 1.52) = 1.00999

So the sales tax must be 1%, or around 1%, which means:
$0.11473 per KWH * 1.01 = $0.1158773 per KWH

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/29 (Thursday, October 29, 2009) :: Electricity :: No Comments »

So much in our modern world (including computer, devices, robots, etc) is powered by electricity – as energy generated a variety of ways.  For many, this is a hot topic in technology / hardware, finances, and eco-friendly / environment.

I’ve made this new category to share some useful info / notes on the topic.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/29 (Thursday, October 29, 2009) :: Blogging, Electricity :: No Comments »

I watched the presentation video here:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/livingproofproject/Pages/impatient-optimists-speech.aspx

> Gates said the generosity of the United States “has helped improve health and save lives and bring down population growth, so that money can be spent on all the other things that need investment – economic growth, jobs, and so on.”
– http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28794.html

Here is an embedded link:

The rest of this post is my notes while watching the video:

Child Deaths: Bill Gates said this chart is the most beautiful picture he has ever seen.  A chart shows that the number of children dying went down from 20 million children in 1960 to under 9 million in 2008.  This is less deaths, despite the 25% increase in number of births.  One of the great accomplishments of the last 100 years.  Bill claims two reasons: one is increase in standard of living and food / sanitation, the other is smart spending on global health.

2010 Federal Budget is $3.6 trillion, ~1% is foreign aid, and ~0.22% is for global health at $8 billion.  The Gate’s foundation puts in $1.8 billion per year, over half the foundation’s spending.

Small Pox: by 1977, small pox was eradicated: $130 million for US over 10 year period saved $17 billion (and also “untold human misery”).

Polio: has been eliminated in the US, and reduced by 99%, but still not completed eradicated.  It is still endemic in 4 countries: Nigeria, India (specifically Uttar Pradesh and Bihar), Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Rotavirus: kills 500,000 per year.  In 1998 a rotavirus vaccine (RotaShield, by Wyeth) was licensed for use in the United States, but the manufacturer of the vaccine, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, or bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants.  In 2006, two vaccines against Rotavirus A infection were shown to be safe and effective in children: Rotarix by GlaxoSmithKline and RotaTeq by Merck.  Paul Offit is credited as an inventor of RotaTeq.

They also mentioned how you have to invent, then manufacture, then transport (which requires refrigeration over plane, truck, then at the hospital / facility), then deliver to patients.

Many big diseases have gone down:

Cost of drugs: has gone down, which is a strong example of how economic development and increased standard of living can reduce cost of drugs, which is how they become available:

HIV/AIDS: since it has no vaccine yet, we need to focus on available treatment, and especially on prevention.  One thing that surprised me is the comment / claim that (male circumcision can reduce AIDS during sex with a partner by 60%) (this surprised me because in the developing world, we don’t have this issue, and circumcision is controversial and sometimes even compared to female genital mutilation).  And there are treatments such as retrovirus.  And alleged progress towards a vaccine.

Malaria: worldwide in 1900, eradicated from US / Canada and Europe in 1970, today in 2009 there is a plan to continue this progress:
  

Here’s a summary:

The US is the biggest contributor, but Europe is also big.

At 40 min, addressing some arguments about global health aid:

Corruption? accountability, auditing, measuring

Does aid discourage developing countries from developing?  Some countries like Brazil and Thailand used to be receivers of aid but are now givers of aid.  Tanzania doubled its health budget since 1990.

Improving health causes overpopulation, and thus actually makes global problems worse?  This one Bill and Melinda worried about a lot, which is why they started with a focus on family planning health issues.  But they referenced a TED talk from Hans Rosling:

  
Formerly poor countries like India in 1960 used to have Poor Health Large Families, and the worry was that giving them aid would just encourage them have larger families, and increase their need for aid.  But according to the data, between 1960 and 2007, the countries actually went up-left rather than just straight up.  Allegedly, because women choose to have smaller families, when they are to choose, and there’s a higher chance of their children surviving into adult years.
This is important, since small families means more resources (time, effort, money, education, health, freedom, etc) to focus on fewer children.  When people have smaller families: it’s easier to feed the kids, to protect their health, to have better nutrition, to send them to school and college or graduate college, to earn more income, to lead more productive lives, to lead less stressful lives, to keep the family life healthier and happier and less stressful and more civil, to better focus and enable the family (both children and parents) to continue to develop grow…  And the economy and standard of living in the country improves and life by every single measure gets better.
One unstated philosophy ethics premise I really liked in this presentation, is how they talked about deaths per year.  Not deaths per year per population.  This is important, and it’s definitely the right way to present it.  If the population triples, and the deaths triples, then the deaths still tripled.

Infant mortality and death of mother during childbirth: One are they said there has not been much progress until very recently.  4 million babies still die within the first 30 days, and 0.5 million mothers that die in childbirth – which of course can affect the entire family.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/28 (Wednesday, October 28, 2009) :: Philosophy / Opinions :: No Comments »

Quote: You know, it’s such a peculiar thing – our idea of mankind in general. We all have a sort of vague, glowing picture when we say that, something solemn, big and important. But actually all we know of it is the people we meet in our lifetime. Look at them. Do you know any you’d feel big and solemn about? There’s nothing but housewives haggling at pushcarts, drooling brats who write dirty words on the sidewalks, and drunken debutantes. Or their spiritual equivalent. As a matter of fact, one can feel some respect for people when they suffer. They have a certain dignity. But have you ever looked at them when they’re enjoying themselves? That’s when you see the truth. Look at those who spend the money they’ve slaved for – at amusement parks and side shows. Look at those who’re rich and have the whole world open to them. Observe what they pick out for enjoyment. Watch them in the smarter speak-easies. That’s your mankind in general. I don’t want to touch it. — Dominique Francon, the Fountainhead, Page 143

Disclaimer: I’d say the same thing here as I would about Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.  If you get caught up in some unimportant detail.  Like asking “are Ayn Rand’s political philosophy ideas too extreme?”, or “is theism and biblical dogma rationally defensible?”.  Like asking “is there something inherently low-class about an amusement park or a housewife?”, or “is it inherently bad to have a sexual fantasy outside of a legal marriage agreement?”.  Or even “isn’t this just negativity based on non-realistic overly idealistic expectations?”.  Then I think you’d be missing the point, or at least getting side-tracked on what I might argue is a bunch of almost-unrelated tangents.  With that in mind, I’d encourage you to read the quote again.

Disclaimer #2: I’m not against people having “well-balanced lives” or multiple interests, or enjoying more than one type of thing.  Maybe a person can be genuine and still enjoy both things that are “solemn, big and important” and things that are (shallow or inane or fleeting or comic relief or just senseless fun), or even a mix (such as a bad joke that tries to encourage thought about an underlying message or topic).  But I love the quote, and I think it can encourage a person to evaluate topics like: how you live your life, what you really care about, what things you focus on, how you spend your time and resources, what is genuine…  How rare is true passion? (What do people really enjoy and value?)

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/23 (Friday, October 23, 2009) :: Personal, Philosophy / Opinions :: No Comments »

*** text from the magazine print ad, 1982:

Can a Computer Make You Cry?

Right now, no one knows. This is partly because many would consider the very idea frivolous. But it’s also because whoever successfully answers this question must first have answered several others.

Why do we cry? Why do we laugh, or love, or smile? What are the touchstones of our emotions?

Until now, the people who asked such questions tended not to be the same people who ran software companies. Instead, they were writers, filmmakers, painters, musicians. They were, in the traditional sense, artists.

We’re about to change that tradition. The name of our company is Electronic Arts.

Software worthy of the minds that use it.

We are a new association of electronic artists united by a common goal—to fulfill the enormous potential of the personal computer.

In the short term, this means transcending its present use as a facilitator of unimaginative tasks and a medium for blasting aliens. In the long term, however, we can expect a great deal more.

These are wondrous machines we have created, and in them can be seen a bit of their makers. It is as if we had invested them with the image of our minds. And through them, we are learning more and more about ourselves.

We learn, for instance, that we are more entertained by the involvement of our imaginations than by passive viewing and listening. We learn that we are better taught by experiences than by memorization. And we learn that the traditional distinctions—the ones that are made between art and entertainment and education—don’t always apply.

Towards a language of dreams.

In short, we are finding that the computer can be more than just a processor of data.

It is a communications medium: an interactive tool that can bring people’s thoughts and feelings closer together, perhaps closer than ever before. And while fifty years from now, its creation may seem no more important than the advent of motion pictures or television, there is a chance it will mean something more.

Something along the lines of a universal language of ideas and emotions. Something like a smile.

The first publications of Electronic Arts are now available. We suspect you’ll be hearing a lot about them. Some of them are games like you’ve never seen before, that get more out of your computer than other games ever have. Others are harder to categorize—and we like that.

Watch us.

We’re providing a special environment for talented, independent software artists. It’s a supportive environment, in which big ideas are given room to grow. And some of America’s most respected software artists are beginning to take notice.

We think our current work reflects this very special commitment. And though we are few in number today and apart from the mainstream of the mass software marketplace, we are confident that both time and vision are on our side.

Join us. We see farther.

…

*** text from the picture caption:

Software artists?

"I’m not so sure there are any software artists yet," says Bill Budge. "We’ve got to earn that title." Pictured here are a few people who have come as close to earning it as anyone we know.

That’s Mr. Budge himself, creator of Pinball Construction Set, at the upper right. To his left are Anne Westfall and Jon Freeman who, along with their colleagues at Free Fall Associates, created Archon and Murder on the Zinderneuf.

Left of them is Dan Bunten of Ozark Softscape, the firm that wrote M.U.L.E. To Dan’s left are Mike Abbot (top) and Matt Alexander (bottom), authors of Hard Hat Mack. In the center is John Field, creator of Axis Assassin and The Last Gladiator. David Maynard, lower right, is the man responsible for Worms?

When you see what they’ve accomplished, we think you’ll agree with us that they can call themselves whatever they want.

…

*** Notes:

In 1982, the newly formed company EA (Electronic Arts) released this magazine print ad.  This was referenced in the movie “Into the Night with Jason Rohrer and Chris Crawford”.

I copied it from here ( http://chrishecker.com/Can_a_Computer_Make_You_Cry%3F )

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/12 (Monday, October 12, 2009) :: Personal, Philosophy / Opinions :: No Comments »

Windows 7 seems more stable, less annoying, more efficient, and the UI is improved.  The most obvious UI change is to the taskbar, with the application group pin/unpin style (similar to Mac OS X doc, but personally I think better in terms of mouse-over and standard shortcut keys).  It sounds like this time around, Windows 7 is a lot more popular (than Vista).  Personally, I was really never that negative about Vista, but in hindsight I might’ve just gone straight form XP to Windows 7.

On one machine I did a fresh install of 64-bit Windows 7, and I’m keeping a full list of every program I install.  On another, I did an upgrade from 64-bit Vista to 64-it Windows 7 (maybe I should’ve done a fresh install?).  I’m still running 32-bit Windows 7 inside my Mac OS X virtual machine, but other than that it’s all 64-bit for me.  And maybe if I ever need to run (or test) something again in Windows XP, I can use a virtual machine.

I ran into an interesting error with my Windows 7 64-bit upgrade.  Basically, 1 of my 2 cores was always at 100% usage.  Eventually I found the problem was due to a conflict with my graphics card’s audio device (which it has as part of HDMI support) and my system’s local audio.  The fix was to go to Device Manager -> System devices -> High Definition Audio Controller.

Here’s a shot of Windows 7 with the Switcher add-on:

Update 2011/04/10: I used devcon.exe to automate disabling the device on startup, see here

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/10 (Saturday, October 10, 2009) :: Windows OS :: No Comments »

I’ve known about this since the original iPhone release on 2007/06/29, but I wasn’t sure if it was still true today.  Well apparently it still is.

> Adobe has promised betas of a mobile-ready Flash 10.1 for Windows Mobile and Palm Pre late this year, and early next year for Android, Symbian, and BlackBerry phones, as well as NVIDIA-powered netbooks. The only hold-out? The iPhone, of course.
– 2009/10/05, http://lifehacker.com/5374437/flash-arriving-by-year+end-on-every-smartphone-except-iphones

> The iPhone supports neither Flash nor Java.  Consequently, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority adjudicated that an advertisement claiming the iPhone could access “all parts of the internet” should be withdrawn in its current form, on grounds of false advertising.
– wikipedia

Well they have a very popular SDK and app store, which does stuff native, and I can definitely see the argument that by not having Java and Flash, it encourages more native iPhone OS applications, which in some ways provides an overall better experience…  so maybe it’s forgivable O:-)

The disappointment is just because it really does mean that a lot of the web doesn’t work on iPhone OS.

Pem (Admin) :: 2009/10/05 (Monday, October 5, 2009) :: Mobility :: No Comments »