| Pages:
1
2 |
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Regolith  | | They built a hydroelectric damn that retains so much water and is so LARGE it's slightly changed the axial spin of the EARTH.
|
That's just pure, unadulterated drivel . . .
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
QUOTE:
"Since RoHS stops me buying electronic gear full of lead, I don't see how it can encourage (for example) the Chinese to use lots of lead.
I realise that their systems suck badly in terms of environmental impact and I agree that we shouldn't be exporting our "dirty work" to them just
because they are not in a position to decline it."
_____
OK no ranting....
I understand where you're coming from. Let me digress for a moment.
I was looking at a diode for a project and the one mfg according to RoHS standards is 10 USD, however I have (at this moment) one from China that
sells for 3 dollars that is non-compliant. - The goods mfg IN China utilize THEIR materials. Therefore we would need to enact MORE legislation to
prevent those from being sold outside of their country & we would have to have a uniform inspection methodology to do so.
This would NOT [however] stop there manufacture for a local market and a continuation of the materials in circulation. At this moment, MANY goods from
China (just as an example) have enormous amounts of toxins used in their construction & are being sold outside their country because only SOME
markets DEMAND compliance with such standards.
India (as another example) has made a literal island of garbage from ocean & water-borne dumping. Additionally there are enormous "re-cycling" of
electronic goods within that country that produce wast of a magnitude that is stupefying due to the precious metals used within, etc.
My point is that nations that do comply with standards for addressing environmental issues are doing so in a market wherein other (not in compliance)
achieve a continuum of profit thus making us less viable AS A MARKET & eventually will out-pace us economically to the detriment of both the
environment but our potential as an influence of change.
Third party manufacturing such as those made in Brazil or Mexico do not HAVE to maintain RoHS standards & certainly don't pay 3x the amount for an
electronic component; this a reality albeit a sad one. It exists in so many areas aside from electronics that [in addition to] trade limitations, etc
are the reason why both the N. American and British have LOST their manufacturing thrust, become service-oriented economies and are headed for more of
the same.
It is NOT that environmental issues have been a cause of economic down-fall; it is that not all are playing on a level field!
This problem had it's roots in both NAFTA & GATT (which very few people actually read) and BOTH political parties voted for such treaties. There
is obviously enough responsibility to go around and it's not one "side" that made this phenomenon occur. in fact it's really NOT a political issue;
although some would like to get some mileage out of it - it's a complex economic one. Whether one believes in carbon emissions as a global threat
which is "man-made" or not is actually not the point IF the largest, most populous nations on Earth are not going to address the issues pertaining to
the environment.
The end result is that those nations that abide by such conventions will eventually suffer economically to the extent that they will simply be milked
for what profit existed and the polluters will move to new markets (perhaps their own, as they grow economically).
[Edited on 13-2-2011 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
Regolith
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 4-2-2011
Location: Mining the moon.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Glacial
|
|
I wish it was. To be clear were talking 0.06 microseconds a shift in the north pole by 2cm.
[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Regolith]
|
|
|
Regolith
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 4-2-2011
Location: Mining the moon.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Glacial
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised | "You didn't respond to the point you simply changed it "
" Much like global warming crap if it's warmer it's global warming if it's COLDER it's global warming. NO it's one way you double talking fool."
Just for a start, LEDs are not responsible for global warming.
Whether or not the Chinese population is growing and// or industrialising, the US and EU (independently, but nevertheless both of them) are
continuing to produce a lot of CO2
If some of that is indirect production (i.e. we get the Chinese to do it then ship the stuff to us) isn't really the point.
It's the Western world's consumer demands that use a lot of the Earth's resources.
Pointing out that, at the moment, trade is down is just a reminder of the recession. Not really news.
And, while we are about it, actually it can happen both ways. A rise in global temperatures will reduce the size of the Arctic ice sheet. That will
reduce the energy delivered to drive the gulf stream and that will make some places (notably Western Europe) cooler.
So hotter can mean cooler, provided that you look at the details.
"China is where they are because their gov mandates cheap products to MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. Thats why things here went out of buisness THEY made them
cheaper and put people out of buisness here."
Perhaps the US govt should mandate the same thing.
"You live in Cali don't you ? "
Not unless the UK has recently been annexed. |
Unionised I was talking to metal reasearcher. You stepped into the line of fire. Heh you weren't the target. I CAN read your in the UK it says right
under your name. No question needed. Damn after reading your post and then mine. No, without doubt I wasn't after you Unionised. Apologies if it
seemed that way your post hadn't showed up as I was compiling my own.
[Edited on 13-2-2011 by Regolith]
|
|
|
madscientist
National Hazard
Posts: 962
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: American Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: pyrophoric
|
|
Attention: anyone who wants to argue about atmospheric sciences should take it elsewhere.
I weep at the sight of flaming acetic anhydride.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Regolith, just for clarity, the earth's rotation is not affected by any dam, whatever its size, capacity or volume of water . . .
|
|
|
Regolith
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 4-2-2011
Location: Mining the moon.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Glacial
|
|
Copy that mods.
Changing the topic to angular momentum.
Hissingnoise, for clarity sake please provide your scientific reasoning behind why NASA says (it's not just nasa it's math) that 42 billion tons
raised 175 meters above the ocean surface WILL affect the angular momentum of the earth.
To be fair were talking the mass of the earth Approx. 5,973,700,000,000,000,000 (I may have shifted a 0 there, it's a big number) Or just under 6
Sextillion metric tons. It's like hanging a grain of sand on a large lead filled beach ball. Still it will create a calculable shift in the spin of
that object.
So are you saying that no matter what the mass it has 0 (Zero) effect on the spin of the earth ? There is no object large enough to make a calculable
shift in angular momentum? Or is your statement thus, that 2 cm of north pole shift is so minuscule as to be said as not affected?
|
|
|
LanthanumK
Hazard to Others
Posts: 298
Registered: 20-5-2011
Location: New Jersey
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Back to the topic: I think As-containing LEDs are unnecessary for most applications. A look into the available semiconductors for LEDs on Wikipedia
shows that arsenic is only needed for infrared LEDs. On the safety of LEDs containing even arsenic: I tried extracting the semiconductor from an IR
LED but it is so strongly sealed in the plastic that even a broken LED will not release anything. Of course, Pb solder can be skipped and replaced
with metals that do not accumulate in the human body, like Sn and Sb. Otherwise, LEDs contain relatively harmless substances like Ga, Zn, In, Al, and
P. Cu wire contaminating streams is paranoia.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by unionised |
Since RoHS stops me buying electronic gear full of lead, I don't see how it can encourage (for example) the Chinese to use lots of lead.
|
Within your particular situation there may be less direct impact but not all production arenas have to be compliant (within Western countries).
Therefore the demand for non-compliant parts may exist simply due to [lack of] contract over sight or for the need of that part. Many contracts
(especially non-governmental ones) are not as rigidly written and non-complaint parts sneak in, etc. When the difference can be 200% cost or more for
a single small part; that's a very attractive alternative.
We know that the reality is that these parts ARE being mfg so they ARE being utilized (NON-RoHS) in some form. If that were not the case we wouldn't
even have a distinction of one from the other.
|
|
|
Twospoons
International Hazard
Posts: 1280
Registered: 26-7-2004
Location: Middle Earth
Member Is Offline
Mood: A trace of hope...
|
|
In my job we have to deal with this on a daily basis - and not just RoHS either. We also have HF (Halogen Free) and REACH link compliance to worry about. REACH is awful - each customer seems to have their own list of banned substances, and it changes almost on a
daily basis. Compliance declarations aren't enough either - we've had to have product analysed by a lab to prove compliance.
Picking parts for a product has become a regulatory nightmare.
(I jealously guard my precious roll of lovely tin/lead solder ...)
FYI I consider myself to be 'light green' on environmental issues : I care, but i'm not about to throw science out the window and turn
environmentalism into a religion or personal crusade.
[Edited on 9-6-2011 by Twospoons]
Helicopter: "helico" -> spiral, "pter" -> with wings
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
LED lights are much safer than all those fluorescent lights our governments are trying to push on us. It would be a more effective use of
envirormentalists effort to replace fluorescent tubes (and compact spiral fixtures) with LED lighting, rather than trying to replace incandescent
bulbs with fluorescent lights, which is what they are trying to do now.
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
asilentbob
Harmless
Posts: 24
Registered: 4-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: *sigh*
|
|
LEDs are more efficient when they are kept cool, the opposite of incandescent, halogen, fluorescent, sulfur, etc... As well they use DC instead of AC
and generally need constant current drivers. The exception being using resistors to drive LEDs... but this doesn't work so well on higher power LEDs
and kinda negates part of the efficiency benefit of the LEDs in the first place.
Our infrastructure of screw in AC socket fixtures is not in the best interests of what LEDs need. As well most of the currently available LED
replacements are crappy in terms of light output, heat sinking and ventilation. They often die fast. Even if they look like they have an impressive
heat sink.
Solution? Don't buy the pre-made screw in socket LED replacement bulbs. Make your own rail and other fixtures where you can be sure that heat sinking
and airflow is adequate as well as keeping you in control of the light output, tint, mounting location, circuit capabilities, cost, etc...
EDIT: The above refers to the problems of using them in AC houses. They are perfect for DC electrical systems like in cars, flashlights, laptops,
etc...
[Edited on 6/11/2011 by asilentbob]
So many ideas... too few dealing with chemistry.
|
|
|
Solomon
Hazard to Self
Posts: 82
Registered: 24-6-2013
Location: Ancient Mines
Member Is Offline
Mood: FOR SCIENCE!
|
|
Toxcicity of LEDs
I am concerned as I often burn out LEDs and did not find out until recently about how toxic they are and their ability to cause cancer and
neurological damage. I think the pakaging should completeley seal in the toxic substance in the LED, and I hope all I was smelling was the epoxy and
not arsenic, lead, and phosphorus compounds! Should I be concerned? I have been driving myself crazy for the past few days over the terrible thought
of brain damage that may have occured.
[Edited on 12-12-2013 by Solomon]
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
You're just smelling the burnt epoxy. There is only a very small quantity of any given light-emitting compound in a LED (think mg, if not ug), toxic
or not. So, in short, you're probably fine.
Although epoxy might not be so friendly either...
Try to use some more resistors. What's your power supply?
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
bfesser
Resident Wikipedian
Posts: 2114
Registered: 29-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Why are you burning out so many LEDs? Be sure that you're using appropriately rated current limiting resistors in series with them, and try to avoid
large reverse voltages across the junction. It's too late to worry about "brain damage that may have occurred."
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_circuit" target="_blank">LED circuit</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />
<a href="https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/219" target="_blank">LED Current Limiting Resistors</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png"
/> (SparkFun)
<a href="http://www.evilmadscientist.com/2012/resistors-for-leds/" target="_blank">Basics: Picking Resistors for LEDs</a> <img
src="../scipics/_ext.png" /> (Evil Mad Scientist)
If you have an iOS device, you could try <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/circuit-playground/id492487671" target="_blank">Adafruit's
Circuit Playground</a> <img src="../scipics/_ext.png" />. It has an LED circuit calculator that comes in handy when you're feeling
particularly brain damaged.
|
|
|
I Like Dots
Hazard to Self
Posts: 69
Registered: 10-4-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: frisky
|
|
When I was a kid I loved to pop all the extra LED's my father had around.
I think you will be fine!
|
|
|
Xenoid
National Hazard
Posts: 775
Registered: 14-6-2007
Location: Springs Junction, New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: Comfortably Numb
|
|
Perhaps you should check out this post!
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=15492
Well, at least the part before it degenerated into a "global warming" rant. 
|
|
|
bfesser
Resident Wikipedian
Posts: 2114
Registered: 29-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Heh, I was just considering merging this one into that topic earlier this morning. Might as well just do it, now.
|
|
|
bfesser
|
Threads Merged
12-12-2013 at 13:32 |
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Been a couple years since I read that starting post about the California study on LED's. Was hoping never to see it again. I don't remember if I read
that old factoid about Ca. here or somewhere else but right now it comes to mind most strongly. California is like breakfast cereal. Take away the
fruits and nuts and all you have left are the flakes. One of them wrote the report in that study about how dangerous LED's are to the planet. The
state is on it's way to financial ruin and they piss away money on studies like that. Idiots.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
bfesser
|
Thread Split
19-12-2013 at 12:01 |
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
