Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

Lead in petrol was even worse, and it was found that average
academic performance was affected adversely by children living
closer to main roads. An effect which is now greatly reduced.


Once again, if there were any data to suppport that assertion I
would have expected the environmentalists to be waving it in our
faces. I haven't seen any evidence that the academic performance
of children has increased since lead was removed from petrol.


Whether it has or hasn't, there has supposedly been a significant reduction
in the amount of lead in people's blood.



True, but in my reading this has been attributed to the eventual
removal/encapsulation of the last remaining bits of lead paint, scrubbers on various
smokestacks where lead might have escaped, etc. And fuel has been lead-free for
decades.

Seems to me that house paint, for example, would have an immediate path to a child's
bloodstream, while landfill leaching would be a much longer path, and RoHS has only
been around in any widespread way for what, 5-8 years, and perhaps only just
recently have RoHS waste electronics been hitting the landfills.

And, at the same time, at least here in the USA much has been done to stop landfill
leaching.

That, by the way, seems to be the far wiser solution: appropriate disposal rather
than forced inferior manufacturing that makes devices malfunction early on.

RoHS has that dual aroma of crony capitalism and fantasy-result feel-good-ism...

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:


If anyone is interested in a little more of the psychology of
all this, pick up "ECO FADES -- How the Rise of Trendy
Enviromentalism is Harming the Environment" by Todd
Myers, published by the Washington Policy Center in
Seattle, WA.


The Washington Policy Center is a right-wing organization that
supports free-market solutions to problems. Oddly, I do, too --
except that I don't believe the free market always has a real,
effective solution to problems.


I would like someone to point out where a free market has ever
existed in the history of humans, because I can't find a single
example. If it doesn't exist, decisions based on the fantasy of it
re no better than any other scam or hoax.


I would say we have a basically free market in this country. It works fairly
well when greed doesn't run rampant, and there are no attempts to manipulate
it. Historically, many economic collapses (such as the most-recent) were the
result of attempts to manipulate the market, or corner a valuable commodity.




Most weren't. Vanishingly few actually were. The most recent was
as far away from that as you could get. read Scott Sumner for
details...

--
Les Cargill
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

hank alrich wrote:
William wrote:

"Neil wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:


If anyone is interested in a little more of the psychology
of all this, pick up "ECO FADES -- How the Rise of Trendy
Enviromentalism is Harming the Environment" by Todd Myers,
published by the Washington Policy Center in Seattle, WA.


The Washington Policy Center is a right-wing organization that
supports free-market solutions to problems. Oddly, I do, too
-- except that I don't believe the free market always has a
real, effective solution to problems.


I would like someone to point out where a free market has ever
existed in the history of humans, because I can't find a single
example. If it doesn't exist, decisions based on the fantasy of
it re no better than any other scam or hoax.


I would say we have a basically free market in this country. It
works fairly well when greed doesn't run rampant, and there are no
attempts to manipulate it. Historically, many economic collapses
(such as the most-recent) were the result of attempts to manipulate
the market, or corner a valuable commodity.


I'd say you're running on fantasy. "Free markets" give away vast
areas of "public" land for the building of railroads,


Nope. Nothing free market about that. It's just like a divine
right king giving other people's land away as a reward
for victory in battle. That was Manifest Destiny, and it
wasn't free at all...

Was it necessary? Good question. Slight tangent; James
McMurtry is the only living songwriter who seems to
write about Manifest Destiny (mainly its effect on
the present day) ... prolly 'cuz his Dad
did, too..

slaves provide uncompensated labor that allows the nation to accrue
wealth,


Again, no. Nothing in any system derived from say, Adam Smith
justifies slavery. Slavery is the abject *antithesis* of free, much
less "free market". Slavery is the cooption of government itself
in granting the privilege to force labor from others.

Don't confuse the liars with what they're lying about. A
Dred Scott decision is worth about a half million deaths...


General Motors buys and then eliminates public transportation in
favor of their own products,


Cecil's always good:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/551/did-general-motors-destroy-the-la-mass-transit-system

Granted, that's just LA...

Money shot:
"...but blaming GM is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for war."

we save the corrupt bankers from their well-deserved free-market
fate.


Nothing free market about that either.

For starters.

Neil is spot-on here. Few have the eyes to see it and the balls to
say it.



I used to think that stuff, too. I was wrong, one fallacy at a time,
over decades. It was fun finding out, though.

--
Les Cargill
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John wrote:

[...]
As for RoHS removing lead from solder, it's not so much that the lead
kills people, it's the long term effect of debilitation in physical and
mental capacity that's the problem,...


I wouldn't disagree with that.


... and it was found that lead from
electonic equipment going into landfill was reaching water sources, and
causing noticeable pollution of drinking water with biologically
available lead compounds.


I have yet to see any proof of that. There are lots of vehement
assertions, but never any proof. Most of the evidence I have seen
suggests the opposite: that lead does not leach out of landfill into
drinking water.


Lead in petrol was even worse, and it was
found that average academic performance was affected adversely by
children living closer to main roads. An effect which is now greatly
reduced.


Once again, if there were any data to suppport that assertion I would
have expected the environmentalists to be waving it in our faces. I
haven't seen any evidence that the acedemic performance of children has
increased since lead was removed from petrol.




That's not science nor environmentalism but PR. PR causes those
distortions. Humans are a story-species, and it makes us
harder to inform.

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/kettering.html

Incredible story there...

--
Les Cargill

  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Edi Zubovic Edi Zubovic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

On 31 Mar 2012 10:39:21 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

mcp6453 wrote:
On 3/30/2012 6:02 PM, Jason wrote:
Here's a link to a long NASA presentation about RoHS-related issues.
Toyota owners: see inside.

http://nepp.nasa.gov/WHISKER/referen...ic-Pb-free.pdf

An equipment manufacturer who many people here know told me the same thing, even
including his company's equipment.


This paper only briefly touches on the real problem for audio folks:
lead-free joints are brittle and fail easily, especially under vibration.
Vibration, like you might encounter at a rock concert.


That's right. Lead-free solders look ugly and are structurally close
to cold solder (mis)joints. They require higher soldering temperatures
and contamination by oxides, sulphides and carbonates from the air is
developing more rapidly as temperature rises. At the other hand, if
soldering is made at temperatures less than about 400 Deg Celsius
(abt. 750 F), lead in solder is not evaporating yet. I consider it
safe to health. 370 deg. C. is by far enough for most soldering work
in electronics. For SM technology, I think still less temperature is
required. At the end, it's not only high temperature but amount of
heat energy transferred to a joint in a time. Also, preheating makes
so to say temperature equalization and thus less temperature
difference shocks to electronic components. A soldering tip
coresponding to dimensions of soldering eye, where possible, is a good
thing.

The good news is that some US-made equipment is still lead-soldered, and
some European microphone manufacturers are still using lead under the grounds
that their products are telecommunications devices and therefore exempt under
the RoHS laws. Condenser mikes, which have high voltages and close spacing,
have very severe issues with tin whiskers. For most other equipment the
brittleness issues are dominant.


Whiskers are monocrystalline I think and are capable of conducting
significant current compared to their dimensions prior to breaking or
melting. I know of silver whiskers, known here as "silver wandering",
which are making shorts in multi-layered PCBs especially at sea
(higher ambient temperature and salty atmosphere) and many of
communication equipent uses to have silver solders and conductors.

The RoHS laws are intended only to apply to disposable consumer equipment.
There are specific exceptions for military and telecom products. The trouble
is that high quality audio gear is small production work, often made in larger
plants that do mass production and which are geared up for lead-free work.


RoHS knows, eh?

Contamination in such facilities becomes a big issue; I have a customer who
is having some electronics made abroad in a facility that specifically was
requested to use leaded solder, but the boards appear to have a mix of
leaded and lead-free solders on them, presumably because someone didn't clean
the wave soldering machine out before changing to leaded. Long term effects
of this weird alloy? Who knows?


Any foreign metal or element in soldering baths is to be considered as
contamination with thresholds measuring in mere ppms. A contaminated
solder bath should be discarded and recycled. Now -- will every
manufacturer strictly follow the procedure?

Oh, well, at least it will keep the board rework guys in business....
--scott



Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

John Williamson writes:

At least two casualties, but from steam burns when they were working in
the reactor enclosure. What's scaring the Japanese is the unknown
quantities of environmental damage that may result from the radiation
release, and the way that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they view *all*
nuclear stuff as bad.


The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as
feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas,
animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't
any human beings around to harass them).

Maybe if the tables had been turned and the
Japanese had nuked New York and Washington, the American publiuc would
feel the same way.


The American public already feels the same way, and for no good reason. It's
very disappointing to see Americans ignoring the 19,000 people killed by the
tsunami, in favor of cowering in fright over nuclear bogeymen that have killed
no one and don't even actually exist.

Other countries with more emotion than brains, such as Germany and France, are
making the same mistakes.

The answer is that we all need to use less, starting a decade or three
ago. Keep our buildings closer to ambient temperature, drive smaller
cars, and use public transport and bicycles wherever possible. Long
term, we need to re-arrange society so things and people don't need to
move around so much. Don't replace your home electronics, computer and
cellphone every year or two, but keep them going as long as possible,
which means redesigning them to be repairable.


None of that will help, because the real problem is increasing population. As
long as the population continues to increase, the environment will continue to
deteriorate. Eventually resources will run thin, and there will be wars,
famine, and pestilence to reduce the population. This is inevitable.

With increasing population, no amount of conservation can protect the
environment. Conversely, with a small population, you can waste resources all
you want without doing any lasting harm to the environment. Ultimately, it's
all about population.

As for RoHS removing lead from solder, it's not so much that the lead
kills people, it's the long term effect of debilitation in physical and
mental capacity that's the problem, and it was found that lead from
electonic equipment going into landfill was reaching water sources, and
causing noticeable pollution of drinking water with biologically
available lead compounds.


The only problem is that no actual biological effects of this have been shown.
Many environmentalists believe that the only safe level is zero, but that is
both unachievable and untrue. There are some things that you cannot entirely
exclude from society.

I wonder why they don't worry about uranium. It's everywhere (especially in
granite), and it's radioactive in addition to being a toxic heavy metal.

Lead in petrol was even worse, and it was
found that average academic performance was affected adversely by
children living closer to main roads. An effect which is now greatly
reduced.


Lead in gasoline was (is?) long the primary source of toxic lead in the
environment. It amazes me that it was ever used at all, since tetraethyl lead
is just asking to be incorporated into body tissues.

And if lead is so dangerous, why are car batteries exempt?
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck writes:

Oh, let's see. There's wind power. There's solar power. Maybe tide and
geothermal. There are many long-term solutions other than nuclear.


None of these can come even remotely close to satisfying current or future
needs for electricity. The only viable options are nuclear power or fossil
fuel. Either you split atoms or you burn coal.

There's no law that says we have to switch to one type of power. A mix can
provide what we need, night and day.


Unfortunately, that is a myth.
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck writes:

You've missed the point.


The point is that alternative sources won't make a dent in energy needs. The
notion that they can is one of the greatest myths spread by militant
environmentalists and their followers. The reality is that it's not going to
work.

The widespread use of "alternative" energy would reduce the need for nuclear
and fossil-fuel plants.


Not to any significant degree. Some other source must be found, and soon.
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck writes:

I don't think we're even close to a limit on energy.


We are receiving a kilowatt per square meter from the sun, but we have no
efficient way to collect it.

But there are far too many humans on this planet, and we use our
physical resources with little regard to their eventually exhaustion.


Exactly. And the real solution is to reduce the population. The population
must go down, not up. And the only practical way to do this is to have fewer
children.
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Les Cargill writes:

Birth rates are declining. Widely.


They are declining only in affluent societies, which are ironically the very
societies that can best afford to support larger populations (although that's
not an excuse to allow the population to increase).

The poorest basket cases of Africa also have the highest rates of population
increase. They must either progress or starve. The best way to progress is
through education, especially of women.

In a decade or so, you'll see a drop in population even in Mexico. Nothing
from those doom books in the '70s has held up...


Wait and see.

Eventually either people will limit their own population, or nature will.


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences
are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings
are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants
seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't
any human beings around to harass them).


The plants mutated and /ate/ all the humans.


  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck writes:


Oh, let's see. There's wind power. There's solar power. Maybe tide and
geothermal. There are many long-term solutions other than nuclear.


None of these can come even remotely close to satisfying current or future
needs for electricity. The only viable options are nuclear power or fossil
fuel. Either you split atoms or you burn coal.


There's no law that says we have to switch to one type of power.
A mix can provide what we need, night and day.


Unfortunately, that is a myth.


Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Jeez.


  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Mxsmanic writes:

John Williamson writes:


At least two casualties, but from steam burns when they were working in
the reactor enclosure. What's scaring the Japanese is the unknown
quantities of environmental damage that may result from the radiation
release, and the way that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they view *all*
nuclear stuff as bad.


The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as
feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas,
animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't
any human beings around to harass them).


Maybe if the tables had been turned and the
Japanese had nuked New York and Washington, the American publiuc would
feel the same way.


The American public already feels the same way, and for no good reason. It's
very disappointing to see Americans ignoring the 19,000 people killed by the
tsunami, in favor of cowering in fright over nuclear bogeymen that have killed
no one and don't even actually exist.


Other countries with more emotion than brains, such as Germany and France, are
making the same mistakes.


The answer is that we all need to use less, starting a decade or three
ago. Keep our buildings closer to ambient temperature, drive smaller
cars, and use public transport and bicycles wherever possible. Long
term, we need to re-arrange society so things and people don't need to
move around so much. Don't replace your home electronics, computer and
cellphone every year or two, but keep them going as long as possible,
which means redesigning them to be repairable.


None of that will help, because the real problem is increasing population. As
long as the population continues to increase, the environment will continue to
deteriorate. Eventually resources will run thin, and there will be wars,
famine, and pestilence to reduce the population. This is inevitable.


With increasing population, no amount of conservation can protect the
environment. Conversely, with a small population, you can waste resources all
you want without doing any lasting harm to the environment. Ultimately, it's
all about population.



IMO, you're quite correct with everything up until the paragraph just above.

Technically the thought is correct, but as a practical matter history proves this
fixed-sized-pie notion not a very reliable model.

In the early 1970s Paul Erlich, et al, predicted dire, terrible things would occur
by the year 2000. Those things -- wide-spread food riots, life spans in 1st World
countries dropping to 45, etc -- never happened.

Just the opposite occurred: we live way longer and are overweight. (Not necessarily
the same groups, but rather as viewed on the societal whole.)

What he and so many others like him fail to consider is the changing nature of
technology and societal trends. Even before huge advances in agriculture, the
carrying capacity of the planet was thought to be 50-60 Billion, where the current
population is around 7B (In 1970 the Zero Population Growth movement had its
collective hair on fire and were predicting a global population of 12B by 2000.)

You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a
land mass the size of Texas. Big state, but only a small fraction of the entire
global land mass. As it is now, there are vast, vast stretches of low density rural
settings in many countries.

We are not overcrowded, except in some population centers where that has been the
edict, or the desire of the people who live there. We are not in any way at a
wholesale level of resource depletion, either. And where shortages occur (and as
someone mentioned, signaled via market price spikes), work-arounds or new technology
emerges (assuming its creators have the freedom to make things happen).

Yes, there are finite limits, but we're a long way from many of those limits. By the
time many of the more crucial limits are actually hit, we will have become a
star-traveling race -- assuming we've not done something really stupid, like use
RoHS electronics to control our star ships! g

In terms of trends, many societies are well *below* the replacement bithrate right
now -- Italy and Russia (dangerously so) to name two.

Some of the longer range thinkers view this downward population trend as a major
problem in the next 500-1000 years, but again technology may change those dire
predictions as well.


And if lead is so dangerous, why are car batteries exempt?


Because they go into Green Cars, and boys and girls, don't we all feel good about
Green Cars?

Frank
Mobile Audio
(Another wrist-slap for an OT post.)
--
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Mxsmanic writes:

Les Cargill writes:


Birth rates are declining. Widely.


They are declining only in affluent societies, which are ironically the very
societies that can best afford to support larger populations (although that's
not an excuse to allow the population to increase).


The poorest basket cases of Africa also have the highest rates of population
increase. They must either progress or starve. The best way to progress is
through education, especially of women.


In a decade or so, you'll see a drop in population even in Mexico. Nothing
from those doom books in the '70s has held up...


Wait and see.


(See my other post about the changing nature of trends and technology.)

We have "waited and seen." The 1970 warnings were *dire and immediate* -- yet
nothing like those predictions ever occurred.

Any many of the African basket-cases are self-imposed by the deepest forms of
corruption imaginable.

Rather than pour resources down a rathole, international bodies should first remove
the rats. But that's admittedly iffy. Remember the $20B fraud scandal with the UN
aid programs a few years back?

And just in the past few days French authorities arrested some mid-level
agricultural minister from a very poor African nation living the high-life in
France. This joker had several sports cars (each valued at more than US$200K), a
private night club in the building where he lived, a private jet, a room dedicated
to objects made of gold, and so on; all this while the folks back home were starving
and kept illiterate. That's the kind of rat I mean.

(If he actually did something to earn that wealth -- and paid the appropriate taxes
-- well, then, maybe it's legally okay. But he was arrested, suggesting theft of
resources intended for others.)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

why China has been the top economic power
for 9 out of the last 10 centuries.


What's your criteria for "top economic power"?




  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences
are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings
are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants
seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't
any human beings around to harass them).


The plants mutated and /ate/ all the humans.


Guffaw. Good one, William.

Frank
Mobile Audio
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MarkK MarkK is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail



In the early 1970s Paul Erlich, et al, predicted dire, terrible things

would occur
by the year 2000. Those things -- wide-spread food riots, life spans in

1st World
countries dropping to 45, etc -- never happened.

Just the opposite occurred: we live way longer and are overweight. (Not

necessarily
the same groups, but rather as viewed on the societal whole.)

What he and so many others like him fail to consider is the changing

nature of
technology and societal trends. Even before huge advances in agriculture,

the
carrying capacity of the planet was thought to be 50-60 Billion, where the

current
population is around 7B (In 1970 the Zero Population Growth movement had

its
collective hair on fire and were predicting a global population of 12B by

2000.)

You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities

into a
land mass the size of Texas. Big state, but only a small fraction of the

entire
global land mass. As it is now, there are vast, vast stretches of low

density rural
settings in many countries.




but how much land area does it take to supply food and clean water and
energy dispose of the waste from those folks?

and how many fish can you take from the sea before it no longer regenerates?

I don't think land area is the limiting factor. I'm not sure what is
though..

Mark





  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

comments on overpopulation

The problem, Frank, is that humans are not /doing/ anything, overall, to
control their population. People in wealthy countries are having fewer
children, yes, but this is more than made up for by people in poorer
countries continuing to have "too many". This has the side effect of
encouraging the latter to migrate to the wealthier countries to take menial
jobs.

The Earth's population cannot continue to increase indefinitely. Once we
reach the limit -- and there /is/ a limit -- there will likely be a
"catastrophe" (in the mathematical sense) with an abrupt collapse of
agricultural and economic systems.

One cause of overpopulation is that the developed countries, with perfectly
good intentions, have spread death control throughout the world, without
simultaneously FORCING its recipients to practice birth control. You cannot
have the former without the latter.

At some point, all governments will have to FORCE their citizens to have
fewer children, whether or not they like it.


  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

snip
Seems to me that house paint, for example, would have an immediate
path to a child's
bloodstream, while landfill leaching would be a much longer path,
and RoHS has only
been around in any widespread way for what, 5-8 years, and perhaps
only just recently have RoHS waste electronics been hitting the
landfills.


I would agree with that. i can see where house paint,
especially interior might have a direct link. Toddlers chew on anything, as do pets.

And, at the same time, at least here in the USA much has been done
to stop landfill
leaching.



INdeed it has. Seems to me to be the most sensible solution to all of this.

That, by the way, seems to be the far wiser solution: appropriate
disposal rather
than forced inferior manufacturing that makes devices malfunction
early on.


Yep, again agree. I don't see why the tools i buy should be manufactured in an inferior way just because somebody who
would buy a throwaway device might dispose it
inappropriately.

But, even more important to this, as we become more
technology dependent, i.e. medical monitoring devices, etc.
We place people at grave risk with this inferior junk. But
then, it's for the children. if grandma dies because her
medical device malfunctions prematurely because the
manufacturing was crap she didn't have any rights anyway,
out with the old, it's for the children!!!

I like the children too, with rice and gravy they're great!

RoHS has that dual aroma of crony capitalism and fantasy-result
feel-good-ism...


OF course it does, potential benefits don't have to be
proved. But, we should all plan on replacing all of our
tools every couple years anyway just to keep the wheels of
commerce turnin' ya know. Reliability be damned, it's newer so it's gotta be better.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Frank Stearns writes:

You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a
land mass the size of Texas.


It's not a question of finding space. It's a question of providing 7 billion
with the same standard of living currently enjoyed by only about 1 billion.
That's a seven-fold increase in resource requirements.

As long as most of the population lives in dirt, you can afford to keep a few
people fat and rich, but if you want everyone to have the same standard of
living, you have to either settle for a very modest standard or keep the
population small.


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Frank Stearns writes:

We have "waited and seen." The 1970 warnings were *dire and immediate* -- yet
nothing like those predictions ever occurred.


Countries with high birth rates reduced them somewhat. But the problem didn't
go away, it just wasn't newsworthy any more.
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck writes:

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?


No, I'm describing reality. There are no magic alternative power sources that
can replace or even significantly supplement fossil fuels and nuclear. Not
politically correct, but true.
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Mxsmanic writes:

Frank Stearns writes:


You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a
land mass the size of Texas.


It's not a question of finding space. It's a question of providing 7 billion
with the same standard of living currently enjoyed by only about 1 billion.
That's a seven-fold increase in resource requirements.


As long as most of the population lives in dirt, you can afford to keep a few
people fat and rich, but if you want everyone to have the same standard of
living, you have to either settle for a very modest standard or keep the
population small.


That's perhaps the saddest part of the equation. Many impoverished nations have
the means live much better lives, but for any number of reasons -- some even well
intentioned (though that's rare) -- greed and corruption of the leadship undercuts
the population.

No easy solution, and this includes simply cutting back the numbers.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Mxsmanic writes:

Frank Stearns writes:


We have "waited and seen." The 1970 warnings were *dire and immediate* -- yet
nothing like those predictions ever occurred.


Countries with high birth rates reduced them somewhat. But the problem didn't
go away, it just wasn't newsworthy any more.


Agreed in some respects -- though not "newsworthy" in the sense of predicting
Complete Doom. "If it bleeds, it leads;" and there isn't nearly the amount of blood
hoped for 40 years ago.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

"MarkK" writes:


In the early 1970s Paul Erlich, et al, predicted dire, terrible things

would occur
by the year 2000. Those things -- wide-spread food riots, life spans in

1st World
countries dropping to 45, etc -- never happened.


snips


but how much land area does it take to supply food and clean water and
energy dispose of the waste from those folks?


and how many fish can you take from the sea before it no longer regenerates?


I don't think land area is the limiting factor. I'm not sure what is
though..


It is of course many things, and in some areas of the planet some things are more
acute than others.

The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably at the great cost of
some pretty massave macro engineering projects.

The point is that with current technology, it's likely we could accommodate quite a
few more folks. let's say 10B total over 30 years, not to mention new technologies
as yet not widely available: say, super-clean fission, or even the elusive fusion
finally comes to pass. Heck, even solar advanced enough to make economic sense (at
the present 80 cents/KwHr, it really doesn't make much sense now, but that might
change). Full-blown Nanotechnology as envisioned by Eric Drexler and others could be
a complete game-changer.

The jump from 5B to 7B took 40 years, though leaping to 12B was forecast in 30
years. That ramp might be just as shallow now, perhaps even dipping a bit; I admit I
don't know.

As far as the "wrong" people having babies... I understand the point, but uh oh, you
could sure get in some trouble for that.... Who decides?

But find a way to make those populations prosper, and they too will start having
fewer babies.

And don't forget those who've looked at a larger time scale, say to the year 3000,
and how we might be having serious issues with *too little* population growth.

Interesting stuff, indeed, but I need to get back to some editing and mixing.
There! I tied this to audio. :/

Frank
Mobile Audio
--


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

PStamler writes:

snips

I spent the time to sit here and write this partly to suggest that
environmental issues aren't as simple as some folks seem to think, and
partly to avoid going in the other room and doing my taxes.


Hi Paul -

I deeply appreciate your sentiment on taxes; same here (along with some editing that
had to be done; but that's now done; taxes next, but in a minute...g)

Your effort to present what Commoner and Erlich have formulated is appreciated.
However, given how broad-brush incorrect both gentlemen have been over the past 40
years on a number of key issues, it's difficult to lend much real-world credibility
to their formulations -- attractive as they might be from a theoretical or academic
stance.

I know they both have a devout following so bits and pieces of what they do are
perhaps dazzlingly correct, but some of the most significant things they've called
incorrectly.

But the exposition perfectly represents the difficulty with such predictions: static
formulations, static variable sets, fail in the broadest sense because the next
Clever Thing/Clever solution/emergence of an Entire Clever Industry can't be taken
into account.

A great deal has happened in the past 40 years, good and bad, that was not predicted
-- everything from telecomm to personal computation to new ways to manage resources;
the list is long. And yes, some cultures lag in accessing those things, but these
items could be available if impeding problems were dealt with. (That discussion
would make this post too long!)

The point is that while such predictions or formulations can be helpful, relying on
them exclusively (in the face of past performance, and from the detriment of doing
what might /really/ be useful) is not a good thing, IMO.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

No, I'm describing reality. There are no magic alternative power
sources that can replace or even significantly supplement fossil
fuels and nuclear.


Which public utility pays you to post such silly remarks?


  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Frank Stearns writes:

The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably
at the great cost of some pretty massave macro engineering projects.


And why should these be carried out, instead of simply limiting the population
to a lower number? The fewer people there are to support, the higher the
standard of living that they can enjoy with finite resources.

As far as the "wrong" people having babies... I understand the point,
but uh oh, you could sure get in some trouble for that.... Who decides?

But find a way to make those populations prosper, and they too will start having
fewer babies.


Yes.

The "wrong" people are always the ones reproducing the most prolifically,
because they are poor and uneducated, and when you are poor and uneducated,
there isn't much else to do except reproduce (or have sex with reproduction as
a side effect).

As populations become more educated and affluent, they find many other things
to do besides procreate, and the rate of population increase falls. In many
developed countries, the rate of natural increase is flat or in decline. The
most important segment of the population to educate is women.

Also, societies with great inequalities between the sexes may have higher
rates of increase, because the only role available for women in such societies
is motherhood (and, in some cases, chores).

And don't forget those who've looked at a larger time scale, say to the year 3000,
and how we might be having serious issues with *too little* population growth.


The population can always be increased rapidly (or decreased rapidly) by birth
control. It only takes a generation to dramatically reduce or increase the
population.
  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

why China has been the top economic power
for 9 out of the last 10 centuries.


What's your criteria for "top economic power"?

*MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that
arrived at that conclusion.

--
Neil



  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Mxsmanic wrote:
William Sommerwerck writes:

You've missed the point.


The point is that alternative sources won't make a dent in energy needs. The
notion that they can is one of the greatest myths spread by militant
environmentalists and their followers. The reality is that it's not going to
work.


That's because once they start to make a dent in energy needs, they aren't
alternative any longer.

There was a time when gasoline was an alternative fuel.. it was a way to use
the lighter petroleum fraction that would otherwise be poured off in the
making of lamp oil. Now it's pretty mainstream.

The widespread use of "alternative" energy would reduce the need for nuclear
and fossil-fuel plants.


Not to any significant degree. Some other source must be found, and soon.


That's the point of alternative energy sources, yes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences
are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings
are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants
seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't
any human beings around to harass them).


The plants mutated and /ate/ all the humans.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQcGQhRp0VY

--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

why China has been the top economic power
for 9 out of the last 10 centuries.


What's your criteria for "top economic power"?

*MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that
arrived at that conclusion.


So then if you don't want to stand behind it, why cite it?


  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Mxsmanic writes:

Frank Stearns writes:


The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably
at the great cost of some pretty massave macro engineering projects.


And why should these be carried out, instead of simply limiting the population
to a lower number? The fewer people there are to support, the higher the
standard of living that they can enjoy with finite resources.


Sorry, I might not have stated that clearly enough. I was not proposing actually
making massive changes to support 50+ billion people.

The point was that as a practical matter it's likely the planet could carry another
3B or so over the next 30-40 years, without such gigantic changes. That's breathing
time for additional game-changing technology to come online and perhaps start
looking outward on a multiple-century horizon. (No, you're not going to shuttle a
billion people off world, but perhaps start shifting some trends over a very long
horizon.)

-snips-

The population can always be increased rapidly (or decreased rapidly) by birth
control. It only takes a generation to dramatically reduce or increase the
population.


I'm still scratching my head here. Who decides?

Are you advocating a centralized planet-wide authority?

While given the potential of some problems, this might seem attractive. The
problem is, who is so noble that you could give them such complete power and
control?

Every time something like this is tried, it fails, rather badly. I'd rather face
enviro problems than live in a totalitarian setting, no matter how well intentioned.
But you might perhaps prefer otherwise.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Scott Dorsey writes:

That's because once they start to make a dent in energy needs, they aren't
alternative any longer.


That hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen in the foreseeable future.

There was a time when gasoline was an alternative fuel.. it was a way to use
the lighter petroleum fraction that would otherwise be poured off in the
making of lamp oil. Now it's pretty mainstream.


Maybe the same will happen to natural gas, which is now being completely
wasted in many cases.

That's the point of alternative energy sources, yes.


The only viable options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Nothing else can produce
the volume of energy required.
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

why China has been the top economic power
for 9 out of the last 10 centuries.

What's your criteria for "top economic power"?

*MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that
arrived at that conclusion.


So then if you don't want to stand behind it, why cite it?

Why are you conflating the two? I cited it because their data refutes
William's statement. If you want to know the veracity of the data, Google is
your friend, and you can argue with those economists about it.

--
Neil




  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

Frank Stearns writes:

The point was that as a practical matter it's likely the planet could carry another
3B or so over the next 30-40 years, without such gigantic changes. That's breathing
time for additional game-changing technology to come online and perhaps start
looking outward on a multiple-century horizon.


History seems to show that human beings will not address a problem until a
crisis arises, and then not very well. So breathing room probably won't help.

I'm still scratching my head here. Who decides?


Probably government authorities, as in China.

Are you advocating a centralized planet-wide authority?


Individual countries can take the same actions.

While given the potential of some problems, this might seem attractive. The
problem is, who is so noble that you could give them such complete power and
control?


What's so special about it? We issue licenses for driving and piloting and
practicing law or medicine. Why not license parents? The future of
civilization depends on how we raise children, so it's very ironic that
parenthood is totally unregulated, whereas we worry about licensing
cosmetologists who will have no lasting effect on anything.

Every time something like this is tried, it fails, rather badly.


It's working in China.

I'd rather face enviro problems than live in a totalitarian setting, no matter
how well intentioned. But you might perhaps prefer otherwise.


Regulation does not equate to totalitarianism.
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

The only viable options are fossil fuels and nuclear.
Nothing else can produce the volume of energy required.


You miss the point -- alternative sources don't have to. Simply reducing our
dependence on nuclear and fossil energy is A Good Thing.


  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger[_4_] Arny Krueger[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 854
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

why China has been the top economic power
for 9 out of the last 10 centuries.

What's your criteria for "top economic power"?

*MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that
arrived at that conclusion.


So then if you don't want to stand behind it, why cite it?


Why are you conflating the two?


Two???

I cited it because their data refutes William's statement.


Not necessarily. You may think that there is only one criteria for the title
of "top economic power", but well-informed people generally don't.

If you want to know the veracity of the data, Google is
your friend, and you can argue with those economists about it.


Since you don't seem to want to even cite which economists you are listening
to...




  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The only viable options are fossil fuels and nuclear.
Nothing else can produce the volume of energy required.


You miss the point -- alternative sources don't have to. Simply reducing our
dependence on nuclear and fossil energy is A Good Thing.




The question is whether or not it's a Good Enough Thing. If
you're wealthy, you can use alts, with maybe a break even
20 or 50 years out.

Most people aren't that wealthy ( or will have to sell the property
and move ). The question then becomes - what gets traded for the Good
Thing?


ideally, (IMO), we'd like to say "in 10 years, we'll be
to where one erg of traditional fuels costs .080 of
what it costs for an alt. source, because we can
spend $xTrillion to get there." . Then you can construct a finance
model for it. Two curves will intersect at time T.

But we can't do that. So this makes alts a kind of gambling.

--
Les Cargill
  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail

William Sommerwerck writes:

You miss the point -- alternative sources don't have to. Simply reducing our
dependence on nuclear and fossil energy is A Good Thing.


We cannot reduce our dependence on nuclear or fossil fuels to any significant
extent without returning to living in straw huts.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can techical people fail to master their computers? Andre Jute Vacuum Tubes 3 December 5th 05 06:03 PM
Amp on 110º angle = fail? Mike Car Audio 4 February 12th 05 01:46 AM
here is how firewire ports fail George Pro Audio 13 September 11th 04 09:11 PM
NASA EMI Shielding Guidebook BrightBoy Pro Audio 2 March 27th 04 01:16 PM
NASA Tests Apple G5 LeBaron & Alrich Pro Audio 0 July 8th 03 01:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"