![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
| |||
| |||
|
|
Unfortunately GE gave up their research into high-efficiency incandescents. |
|
both the quartz-capsule HIRs inside a standard bulb envelope and exotic filament treaatments. |
#102
| |||
| |||
|
|
I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was that GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams (surface treatment). Nitride is super hard, but once it wore thru that layer, the cams wore like butter. I did have to replace a cam in a 1980 GM vehicle at about the mileage that "they" said was typical of the wearout. |
#103
| |||
| |||
|
|
hls wrote: "Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote in message It amazes me that anyone today doesn't realize what a massive effort went into fixing all the possible Y2K problems before they happened. I guess thats gratitude for you.... :-( I think you are right in a sense. There is no gratitude. Did we not see the millenium coming for the entire history of modern computing??? Duh... But, much as the designers of the 1957 BelAir and 1968 Roadrunner didn't expect those vehicles to remain hugely popular in 2009 and didn't design them for that kind of lifespan and maintainability, software developers in 1988 didn't REALLY expect their code snippets (or hell, whole programs!) to still be running in 1999/2000. |
#104
| |||
| |||
|
| I'm not an expert in this area, but street rumor over the years was that GM cams wore out so suddenly because they nitrided the cams (surface treatment). Nitride is super hard, but once it wore thru that layer, the cams wore like butter. I did have to replace a cam in a 1980 GM vehicle at about the mileage that "they" said was typical of the wearout. OK, I'm a little beyond my depth of knowledge here, but AFAIK *ALL* flat-tappet cams have to be hardened (usually nitrided or some other surface process) after the cam lobes are ground on the blank. Too much material has to be removed when the lobes are ground to shape to use a pre-grind hardening process- all the hardening would be removed except on the very tip of the lobe and it would get undercut very quickly. I'm sure that the quality and thickness of the hardening can vary, though. |
|
In addition GM (Chevrolet division engines in particular) up through the end of factory flat-tappet cams had comparatively high cam wear because they used a smaller diameter lifter than Ford, Chrysler, AMC, and (I think) some of the other GM divisions like Oldsmobile and Cadillac. |
#105
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bill Putney wrote: Steve wrote: Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are claimed to be the same light levels, Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs anymore... |
#106
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve wrote: Bill Putney wrote: Steve wrote: Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are claimed to be the same light levels, Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs anymore... I know I heard a news report within the last month about class action suits being filed or threatened regarding overstated and fraudulent claims of equivalent light output. I caught the report on the fly - wish I had caught more details about who was the sue-ee and who was the sue-er. After a little Googling, perhaps it was this story that I heard a version of - sounds vaguely familiar, but not what I was thinking it was: http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/10/09/ohio-repeats- maryland %e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98take-this-bulb-and-shove-it%e2%80%99-fiasco/ But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not living up to its promises of life and light output. |
#107
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net> wrote in news:7m0u2pF3g0456U1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net: Steve wrote: Bill Putney wrote: Steve wrote: Oh - you just wait. I guarandamntee you that Al Gore or someone like him is just biding their time for a few years until we're 99% committed to the flourescents. *THEN* - just when we're over that transition (i.e., getting used to reduced light levels that are claimed to be the same light levels, Actually I don't find that to be a problem with current generation CFLs anymore... I know I heard a news report within the last month about class action suits being filed or threatened regarding overstated and fraudulent claims of equivalent light output. I caught the report on the fly - wish I had caught more details about who was the sue-ee and who was the sue-er. After a little Googling, perhaps it was this story that I heard a version of - sounds vaguely familiar, but not what I was thinking it was: http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2009/10/09/ohio-repeats- maryland %e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98take-this-bulb-and-shove-it%e2%80%99-fiasco/ But in my Googling, I did come across lots of comments about CFL's not living up to its promises of life and light output. I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB |
#108
| |||
| |||
|
#109
| |||
| |||
|
|
I haven`t had a dam cfl last more than a year yet. KB |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |