Ah--then YOU can tell me where to find an incandescent
that won't burnout for a decade or so..? I know they
exist, but they're understandably unpopular amongst
lightbulb-makers.
Marrek
--On 18 Jul 2000, at 11:52, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote: > > > > John Clark wrote: > > > > > > Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net> Wrote: > > > > > > >The famous $x00 hammer that started the meme that the government was being > > > >wasteful, etc, was a modal hammer, [...] has accelerometers mounted on it to measure > > > >resonances and vibration modes. > > > > > > What about the $1500 toilet seat, did it have accelerometers mounted on it to measure > > > resonances and vibration modes too? > > > > It had to undergo extensive g-force testing to ensure that it would not > > flop around and break under extensive maneuvering, and we bought fewer > > of those than of the hammers... > > I can also tell you about the $500 light bulb. Being a spark chaser on fighters, > I can tell you a minimum of 25% of your time is spent replacing expired light > bulbs, from the thousand or so in the cockpit, to the landing lights, to the > wingtip navigation lights, to the EL formation lights, to the tail lights. Light > bulbs can die, short, or simply explode on you. Whole aircraft have been lost > due to light bulb failures (at a cost of $15-100 million per plane). Civilian > light bulbs just don't cut it, and engineering lights that operate twice as long > or more than their predecessors saves millions of dollars more in labor and > saved planes than it costs to engineer better bulbs. This is how I got into > efficient lighting development after the Air Force. > > Mike Lorrey
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:52 MDT