On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:18:37 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:06:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/18/2022 11:37 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> >>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
> >>>>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
> >>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
> >>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
> >>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
> >>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
> >>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
> >>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
> >>>>>>> fluctuation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
> >>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
> >>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
> >>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
> >>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
> >>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
> >>>> LEDs....
> >>> Indeed.
> >>>
> >>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
> >>> comes along.
> >>>
> >>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
> >>
> >> Better made, longer lasting LEDs.
> >> Dubai bulbs: https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/
> >>
> >> Pt
> >
> >I buy these 70 bulb and 90 bulb LED floodlights for my warehouse. I
> >have bought sixteen of them so far. No failures of a single LED bulb in
> >over five years from the first one I bought.
> > https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08DFQ84CM/
> IIR the propaganda correctly, five years is as nothing compared to how
> long they should last.
>
> The problem, of course, is that nobody has used one long enough to
> find out.
>
> Never mind verified if the cost savings are real. Do those include a
> reduction for the loss of incandescent bulbs' heat which must be made
> up by the heating system which then costs more to use? Didn't think
> so.

How about savings due to reduced AC requirements? After all, Dubai.

pt

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <ChU3L.115586$tRy7.103510@fx36.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Just wait until D.D. Harriman contracts with 7-Up[*] to cover the
>>moon with carbon dust in a 7-Up logo :-)
>>
>>The second link proposes a satellite constellation that would be
>>visible to the bare eye.
>>
>>[*] Memory says RAH didn't explicitly name the company...
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Memory suggests that he was probably thinking of Coca Cola.

Looks like both were in play...

"Harriman was shown into the office of the president of the
Moka-Coka Company ("Only a Moke is truly a coke Drink the Cola
drink with the Lift"). He paused at the door, some twenty
feet from the president's desk and quickly pinned a two-inch
wide button to his lapel"

"...It was a celluloid advertising pin, in plain yellow;
printed on it in black, almost covering it, was a simple 6+,
the trademark of Moka-Coka"

"You. You and your company. After all, you've got a good
product and you need legitimate advertising for it. It
occurred to me that there are more ways to use the Moon
in advertising than by defacing it. Now just suppose that
your company bought the same concession, but with the
public-spirited promise of never letting it be used. Suppose
you featured that fact in your ads? Suppose you ran pictures
of a boy and girl, sitting out under the Moon, sharing a bottle
of Moke? Suppose Moke was the only soft drink carried on the first
trip to the Moon? But I don't have to tell you how to do it.

He glanced at his watch finger. I've got to run and I don't
want to rush you. If you want to do business just leave word
at my office by noon tomorrow and I'll have our man Montgomery
get in touch with your advertising chief"

In article <ChU3L.115586$tRy7.103510@fx36.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 9:43:12 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> >> >On Tuesday, 18 October 2022 at 22:07:56 UTC+1, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> >> >> >On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 1:59:08 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well, what are the desirable properties?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> * High efficiency in turning electrical energy into visible light.
> >> >> >> I see constantly that 'LEDs use 85% less energy than incandescents',
> >> >> >> but the number
> >> >> >> the actually seems to matter is lumens/watt: 10 for incandescents,
> >> >> >> and 37-120 for
> >> >> >> LEDs.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> * LEDs need DC to run efficiently, and turning AC to DC leads to
> >> >> >> additional losses:
> >> >> >> full wave rectifiers lose almost 20% of input energy. Efficient
> >> >> >> running on AC might be
> >> >> >> desirable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> * Color truth. Incandescents emit black body radiation, and show
> >> >> >> true colors for
> >> >> >> their temperature. LEDs have a much choppier spectrum, and colors
> >> >> >> may be incorrect.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm sure others can think of more.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your reply, and the previous one to which you replied, are
> >> >> >well-thought-out.
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >However, for *outdoor* lighting, there _is_ a desirable property that
> >> >> >LEDs lack. One that
> >> >> >a predecessor technology, low-pressure sodium lights, posessed. That
> >> >> >is, the property
> >> >> >of emitting monospectral light so that it could easily be filtered out
> >> >> >by astronomical
> >> >> >observers.
> >> >> I don't think this is as big a consideration for LED lights as it was
> >> >> for
> >> >> mercury vapor. LED lighting is very directional, unlike MV or SV; in
> >> >> San Jose (which for decades had SV lighting for the nearby Lick
> >> >> Observatory)
> >> >> the city has completely switched to 5k color temp LED street lighting;
> >> >> without
> >> >> interfering with observations (and significantly less overspill into
> >> >> the homes
> >> >> along the street) at the Lick Observatory.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, billboards on the other hand...
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/25/south-bay-astronomers-fear-propos
> >> >> ed-airport-billboards-would-threaten-night-viewing/
> >> >
> >> >You do need to stop that before we get to -
> >> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Jupiter>
> >> Recent proposal for satellite advertising:
> >>
> >> https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026365725/spacex-billboard-ads-satellite-or
> >> bit-livestream-space-tiny-gec-cubesat
> >> https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/05/space-billboards-could-cost-65m-and-still
> >> -turn-a-profit/
> >> https://www.businessinsider.com/billboards-in-space-are-fast-approaching-a-
> >> new-study-says-2022-10
> >
> >TLDNR: Ads projected on a screen on a tiny cubesat, and video sent to the
> >ground. Not visible
> >from the ground, and not without a great deal of effort.
> >
> >Reminds me of the 'Cuecat'. Marketeers with their heads so far up their
> >asses they think
> >people will go to a lot of effort to view *more* advertising.
> >
> >pt
>
> Just wait until D.D. Harriman contracts with 7-Up[*] to cover the
> moon with carbon dust in a 7-Up logo :-)
>
> The second link proposes a satellite constellation that would be
> visible to the bare eye.
>
> [*] Memory says RAH didn't explicitly name the company...

Didn't Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story where an experiment (sodium
vapor?) was secretly converted into an advertisement?

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:18:37 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:06:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/18/2022 11:37 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> >>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>> >>>>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
>> >>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
>> >>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
>> >>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
>> >>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
>> >>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
>> >>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
>> >>>>>>> fluctuation.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
>> >>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
>> >>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
>> >>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
>> >>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
>> >>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
>> >>>> LEDs....
>> >>> Indeed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
>> >>> comes along.
>> >>>
>> >>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
>> >>
>> >> Better made, longer lasting LEDs.
>> >> Dubai bulbs: https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/
>> >>
>> >> Pt
>> >
>> >I buy these 70 bulb and 90 bulb LED floodlights for my warehouse. I
>> >have bought sixteen of them so far. No failures of a single LED bulb in
>> >over five years from the first one I bought.
>> > https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08DFQ84CM/
>> IIR the propaganda correctly, five years is as nothing compared to how
>> long they should last.
>>
>> The problem, of course, is that nobody has used one long enough to
>> find out.
>>
>> Never mind verified if the cost savings are real. Do those include a
>> reduction for the loss of incandescent bulbs' heat which must be made
>> up by the heating system which then costs more to use? Didn't think
>> so.
>
> How about savings due to reduced AC requirements? After all, Dubai.

Or Texas for that matter. I'm also not aware of many places where straight
resistance heating is a win. I'd much rather have the LEDs generating less
heat in the summer and the heat pump taking up the heating slack in the
winter.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

On 10/19/2022 11:18 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:06:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2022 11:37 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>>>>>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
>>>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
>>>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
>>>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
>>>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
>>>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
>>>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
>>>>>>>> fluctuation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
>>>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
>>>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
>>>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
>>>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
>>>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
>>>>> LEDs....
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
>>>> comes along.
>>>>
>>>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
>>>
>>> Better made, longer lasting LEDs.
>>> Dubai bulbs: https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/
>>>
>>> Pt
>>
>> I buy these 70 bulb and 90 bulb LED floodlights for my warehouse. I
>> have bought sixteen of them so far. No failures of a single LED bulb in
>> over five years from the first one I bought.
>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08DFQ84CM/
>
>
> IIR the propaganda correctly, five years is as nothing compared to how
> long they should last.
>
> The problem, of course, is that nobody has used one long enough to
> find out.
>
> Never mind verified if the cost savings are real. Do those include a
> reduction for the loss of incandescent bulbs' heat which must be made
> up by the heating system which then costs more to use? Didn't think
> so.
>
>> Picture of several floodlights that I have replaced.
>> https://www.winsim.com/ceiling_of_warehouse_2.jpg
>
> Hard to reach, no doubt, and so a perfect application for fluorescent
> tubes or the said-to-be-longer-lasting-and-may-well-be LEDs.

The old metal halide fixtures in my warehouse were 1,000 watts each
(seen on the left upper side of
https://www.winsim.com/ceiling_of_warehouse_2.jpg ). The new LEDs are
200 watts each. Standing under the old metal halide fixtures in the
Texas summer was just like being in a furnace door. We rarely need
heating in the Texas winter so not a loss.

And the old metal halide lights took ten minutes to startup, the new LED
fixtures are instantly on. That is definitely sweet.

And yes, the light fixtures are 23 feet to 30 feet off the ground. Very
inconvenient so I rent a 35 foot boom lift. Here is a picture of me
swapping one of the top light fixtures.
https://www.winsim.com/lynn_replacing_warehouse_top_light.jpg

Lynn

On 10/19/2022 9:53 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> In article <ChU3L.115586$tRy7.103510@fx36.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Just wait until D.D. Harriman contracts with 7-Up[*] to cover the
>>> moon with carbon dust in a 7-Up logo :-)
>>>
>>> The second link proposes a satellite constellation that would be
>>> visible to the bare eye.
>>>
>>> [*] Memory says RAH didn't explicitly name the company...
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Memory suggests that he was probably thinking of Coca Cola.
>
> IIRC, he shopped the idea to multiple softdrink companies.

Well, he'd want the one that could _afford_ the price.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/19/2022 9:23 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:56:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2022 9:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterwezeman@hotmail.com"
>>>>>> <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
>>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
>>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
>>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
>>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
>>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
>>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
>>>>>>> fluctuation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
>>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
>>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
>>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
>>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
>>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
>>>>
>>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
>>>> LEDs....
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
>>> comes along.
>>>
>>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
>>
>> Which is not the same question as "What will be available to replace
>> LEDs?" ;) (I can imagine people in 2070 talking about the multiple
>> generations of new light bulbs that have come out and asking why they
>> are still using LEDs simply because they haven't burned out yet.)
>
> Yes, they do go rather against the sacred business concept of "planned
> obselescence".
>
> But by 2070 the people asking that question are likely to find that
> the Latest and Greatest lighting solution is all they can find at
> their local store.
>
> Perhaps they will sell LEDs on-line by year of manufacture. With some
> years being preferred.
>
> Stranger things have happened.
>
"What vintage are your LEDs?"
"2033."
"Oh, that was a good year! The diodes for that vintage were
exceptionally well tuned."

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, 19 October 2022 at 21:15:22 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 9:23 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:56:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/18/2022 9:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> >>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
> >>>>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
> >>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
> >>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
> >>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
> >>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
> >>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
> >>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
> >>>>>>> fluctuation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
> >>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
> >>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
> >>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
> >>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
> >>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
> >>>> LEDs....
> >>>
> >>> Indeed.
> >>>
> >>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
> >>> comes along.
> >>>
> >>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
> >>
> >> Which is not the same question as "What will be available to replace
> >> LEDs?" ;) (I can imagine people in 2070 talking about the multiple
> >> generations of new light bulbs that have come out and asking why they
> >> are still using LEDs simply because they haven't burned out yet.)
> >
> > Yes, they do go rather against the sacred business concept of "planned
> > obselescence".
> >
> > But by 2070 the people asking that question are likely to find that
> > the Latest and Greatest lighting solution is all they can find at
> > their local store.

"Local store." That might be too much a 20th century concept for this.

> > Perhaps they will sell LEDs on-line by year of manufacture. With some
> > years being preferred.
> >
> > Stranger things have happened.
> >
> "What vintage are your LEDs?"
> "2033."
> "Oh, that was a good year! The diodes for that vintage were
> exceptionally well tuned."

In a world of scarcity especially, progress may not always make
things better.

I just read about a different type of solar cell - which may not
be new - that is less effective than silicon-based panels,
but is lighter, and cheaper. So -
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63211086>
"Could solar-powered headphones be the next must-have?"

Frankly, considering how the 2020s have gone up to now,
I don't see this suddenly becoming our main concern. YMMV.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, 19 October 2022 at 21:15:22 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 10/19/2022 9:23 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:56:53 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/18/2022 9:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> >>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>> >>>>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
>> >>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
>> >>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
>> >>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
>> >>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
>> >>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
>> >>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
>> >>>>>>> fluctuation.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
>> >>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
>> >>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
>> >>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
>> >>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
>> >>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
>> >>>> LEDs....
>> >>>
>> >>> Indeed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
>> >>> comes along.
>> >>>
>> >>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
>> >>
>> >> Which is not the same question as "What will be available to replace
>> >> LEDs?" ;) (I can imagine people in 2070 talking about the multiple
>> >> generations of new light bulbs that have come out and asking why they
>> >> are still using LEDs simply because they haven't burned out yet.)
>> >
>> > Yes, they do go rather against the sacred business concept of "planned
>> > obselescence".
>> >
>> > But by 2070 the people asking that question are likely to find that
>> > the Latest and Greatest lighting solution is all they can find at
>> > their local store.
>
>"Local store." That might be too much a 20th century concept for this.
>
>> > Perhaps they will sell LEDs on-line by year of manufacture. With some
>> > years being preferred.
>> >
>> > Stranger things have happened.
>> >
>> "What vintage are your LEDs?"
>> "2033."
>> "Oh, that was a good year! The diodes for that vintage were
>> exceptionally well tuned."
>
>In a world of scarcity especially, progress may not always make
>things better.
>
>I just read about a different type of solar cell - which may not
>be new - that is less effective than silicon-based panels,
>but is lighter, and cheaper. So -
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63211086>
>"Could solar-powered headphones be the next must-have?"
>

There are a number of promising technologies for less expensive
solar cells being researched.

https://phys.org/tags/solar+cells/

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 09:58:53 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 12:18:37 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:06:18 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/18/2022 11:37 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:08:25 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> >>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:52 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> >>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), "peterw...@hotmail.com"
>> >>>>>> <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> At the present time there are very strict standards regarding human
>> >>>>>>> exposure to mercury vapor, to the extent that we are supposed to
>> >>>>>>> take old fluorescent tubes and mercury switches to special sites
>> >>>>>>> where the mercury can be recovered and recycled. It does seem
>> >>>>>>> that they were much more casual about mercury exposure at the
>> >>>>>>> power plant you describe, where hundreds of pounds of mercury
>> >>>>>>> could be vented into a work space because of a temperature
>> >>>>>>> fluctuation.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> And if you break a CFL, you basically have a HAZMAT site to deal with.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That is not an accurate characterization:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.epa.gov/mercury/cleaning-broken-cfl
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Don't be alarmed; the steps outlined below are only
>> >>>>> precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a
>> >>>>> broken CFL. Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small
>> >>>>> amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount
>> >>>>> in a mercury thermometer."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Fortunately, it's mainly a problem that we've put behind us
>> >>>>> with the advent of LED lighting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or will be behind us when we've physically _replaced_ all the CFLs with
>> >>>> LEDs....
>> >>> Indeed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Long-lasting tech can be problematic when new longer-lasting tech
>> >>> comes along.
>> >>>
>> >>> What will replace LEDs, I wonder.
>> >>
>> >> Better made, longer lasting LEDs.
>> >> Dubai bulbs: https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/
>> >>
>> >> Pt
>> >
>> >I buy these 70 bulb and 90 bulb LED floodlights for my warehouse. I
>> >have bought sixteen of them so far. No failures of a single LED bulb in
>> >over five years from the first one I bought.
>> > https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08DFQ84CM/
>> IIR the propaganda correctly, five years is as nothing compared to how
>> long they should last.
>>
>> The problem, of course, is that nobody has used one long enough to
>> find out.
>>
>> Never mind verified if the cost savings are real. Do those include a
>> reduction for the loss of incandescent bulbs' heat which must be made
>> up by the heating system which then costs more to use? Didn't think
>> so.
>
>How about savings due to reduced AC requirements? After all, Dubai.

We don't do AC. But, yes, those savings would count.

I have, however, severe doubts about their cancelling out (if that is
where is this heading) up here, where it is 3-4 months with no heating
needed and 8-9 months with the furnace in use (not continually, of
course; only when the thermostat so dictates).

The latest offical program to replace our oil furnace with a heat pump
claimed that we would get "AC for Free!". This is, of course, total
nonsense: electricity would be used to provide the AC, as it is for
the heat, and we would have to pay for that. (What they /meant/, of
course, is that the very same heat pump would provide both.)

I tried some research in heat pumps; as I expected, buying a heat pump
is like buying an oil furnace -- all you can do is buy a pig in a poke
and see what you get.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> In article <tikqvs$17bf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
[stuff deleted]

>>
>> I am happy to say that I never had to fight a fire involving Lithium/Ion
>> batteries or involving titanium. We did have some training on EV fires,
>> but not nearly enough, and that was for me, 7 years ago. Things have
>> evolved since then. I do know that our plan was basically "surround and
>> drown" and protect the exposures because we sure as hell weren't going
>> to put it out. The chance of a titanium fire was not nil since Lockheed
>> had/has the Rocket Ranch up above us in Bonnydoon. All sorts of exotic
>> things come through town.
>>
>> Since others mentioned magnesium, I did fight a couple of those types of
>> fires. It is occasionally found in engines, and some power tools. It
>> will definitely get your attention when you hit it with a hose stream.
>> Also very hard to put out with just water. It is generally easier to
>> just let it burn.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Did you also train on how to put out an oil fire with water?

Not exactly. When I first started, Jan 1988, our training wasn't the
best. Our department at the time was approximately 35 volunteers with
various amounts of training and little ability to teach. These were
mostly blue collar guys (and only guys): mail man (Chief), hardware
store owner, water company laborers, police detective (Asst. Chief),
laborers, paramedic, paid firefighters (a couple), emergency dispatcher,
carpenters, contractors, and the like. And the town pharmacist whose
father and grandfather had been on years before. Most if not all were
born and raised here in Boulder Creek. I was told that I was the first
real outsider on the department.

The philosophy then was surround and drown oil/gas fires that could not
be put out with an ABC extinguisher. It actually works pretty well. 500+
gallons applied quickly will knock it down if it is not too big.

Later on, we used Compressed Air Foam (CAFS). Even though it was a Type
A foam, it worked pretty well on oil fires. It would float on top of the
water and suffocate the fire. I liked the stuff. We ran it at 0.3% foam
solution with varying amounts of air mixed in. It could have the
consistency of thick shaving cream (dry foam) that would stick to a
structure, tree, whatever up to the consistency of thin cream of white
stuff soup (wet foam) for deep penetration into whatever it was sprayed on.

Now there is a big stink over the AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) Class
B foam which they are saying is carcinogenic. We never even drilled with
that stuff I am happy to say.

More than you were looking for? I'm bored and a bored Dave tends to
write too long and too much.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, BCFD36 wrote:
> On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> > In article <tikqvs$17bf$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcf...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> [stuff deleted]
>
> >>
> >> I am happy to say that I never had to fight a fire involving Lithium/Ion
> >> batteries or involving titanium. We did have some training on EV fires,
> >> but not nearly enough, and that was for me, 7 years ago. Things have
> >> evolved since then. I do know that our plan was basically "surround and
> >> drown" and protect the exposures because we sure as hell weren't going
> >> to put it out. The chance of a titanium fire was not nil since Lockheed
> >> had/has the Rocket Ranch up above us in Bonnydoon. All sorts of exotic
> >> things come through town.
> >>
> >> Since others mentioned magnesium, I did fight a couple of those types of
> >> fires. It is occasionally found in engines, and some power tools. It
> >> will definitely get your attention when you hit it with a hose stream.
> >> Also very hard to put out with just water. It is generally easier to
> >> just let it burn.
> >
> > (Hal Heydt)
> > Did you also train on how to put out an oil fire with water?
>
> Not exactly. When I first started, Jan 1988, our training wasn't the
> best. Our department at the time was approximately 35 volunteers with
> various amounts of training and little ability to teach. These were
> mostly blue collar guys (and only guys): mail man (Chief), hardware
> store owner, water company laborers, police detective (Asst. Chief),
> laborers, paramedic, paid firefighters (a couple), emergency dispatcher,
> carpenters, contractors, and the like. And the town pharmacist whose
> father and grandfather had been on years before. Most if not all were
> born and raised here in Boulder Creek. I was told that I was the first
> real outsider on the department.
>
> The philosophy then was surround and drown oil/gas fires that could not
> be put out with an ABC extinguisher. It actually works pretty well. 500+
> gallons applied quickly will knock it down if it is not too big.
>
> Later on, we used Compressed Air Foam (CAFS). Even though it was a Type
> A foam, it worked pretty well on oil fires. It would float on top of the
> water and suffocate the fire. I liked the stuff. We ran it at 0.3% foam
> solution with varying amounts of air mixed in. It could have the
> consistency of thick shaving cream (dry foam) that would stick to a
> structure, tree, whatever up to the consistency of thin cream of white
> stuff soup (wet foam) for deep penetration into whatever it was sprayed on.
>
> Now there is a big stink over the AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) Class
> B foam which they are saying is carcinogenic. We never even drilled with
> that stuff I am happy to say.
>
> More than you were looking for? I'm bored and a bored Dave tends to
> write too long and too much.

I've been looking at putting in solar + battery storage at my home. I'm
a bit nervous about the fire hazards of having large batteries in the house,
though the statistics seem pretty good. Adding a fire suppression system
feels like a good idea.

Both magnesium and lithium will burn in Carbon Dioxide. However, there's
been experiments with straight argon and argon foams that look promising:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01873399

pt

In article <tj6lff$ocr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> In article <tikqvs$17bf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>>
>>> I am happy to say that I never had to fight a fire involving Lithium/Ion
>>> batteries or involving titanium. We did have some training on EV fires,
>>> but not nearly enough, and that was for me, 7 years ago. Things have
>>> evolved since then. I do know that our plan was basically "surround and
>>> drown" and protect the exposures because we sure as hell weren't going
>>> to put it out. The chance of a titanium fire was not nil since Lockheed
>>> had/has the Rocket Ranch up above us in Bonnydoon. All sorts of exotic
>>> things come through town.
>>>
>>> Since others mentioned magnesium, I did fight a couple of those types of
>>> fires. It is occasionally found in engines, and some power tools. It
>>> will definitely get your attention when you hit it with a hose stream.
>>> Also very hard to put out with just water. It is generally easier to
>>> just let it burn.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Did you also train on how to put out an oil fire with water?
>
>Not exactly. When I first started, Jan 1988, our training wasn't the
>best. Our department at the time was approximately 35 volunteers with
>various amounts of training and little ability to teach. These were
>mostly blue collar guys (and only guys): mail man (Chief), hardware
>store owner, water company laborers, police detective (Asst. Chief),
>laborers, paramedic, paid firefighters (a couple), emergency dispatcher,
>carpenters, contractors, and the like. And the town pharmacist whose
>father and grandfather had been on years before. Most if not all were
>born and raised here in Boulder Creek. I was told that I was the first
>real outsider on the department.
>
>The philosophy then was surround and drown oil/gas fires that could not
>be put out with an ABC extinguisher. It actually works pretty well. 500+
>gallons applied quickly will knock it down if it is not too big.
>
>Later on, we used Compressed Air Foam (CAFS). Even though it was a Type
>A foam, it worked pretty well on oil fires. It would float on top of the
>water and suffocate the fire. I liked the stuff. We ran it at 0.3% foam
>solution with varying amounts of air mixed in. It could have the
>consistency of thick shaving cream (dry foam) that would stick to a
>structure, tree, whatever up to the consistency of thin cream of white
>stuff soup (wet foam) for deep penetration into whatever it was sprayed on.
>
>Now there is a big stink over the AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) Class
>B foam which they are saying is carcinogenic. We never even drilled with
>that stuff I am happy to say.
>
>More than you were looking for? I'm bored and a bored Dave tends to
>write too long and too much.

(Hal Heydt)
Dorothy used to describe that as providing more about penguins
than you ever wanted to know.

The method that the Maritime Service (and the Navy, and I dare
say, the Coast Guard) used before the advent of foams, was a
high pressure fog nozzle. You used the spray to sweep the flames
off the surface of the oil and it also cooled the oil and
smothered the fire (water vapor) while doing so.

The fundamental problem they were training for were ship-board
fires at sea. Lots of water available--a whole ocean full--and
not much else. So water is what you used.

In article <65cd9ea8-e4e0-4a46-b713-c7cdbee2d61en@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, BCFD36 wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>> > In article <tikqvs$17bf$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, BCFD36
><bcf...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> [stuff deleted]
>>
>> >>
>> >> I am happy to say that I never had to fight a fire involving Lithium/Ion
>> >> batteries or involving titanium. We did have some training on EV fires,
>> >> but not nearly enough, and that was for me, 7 years ago. Things have
>> >> evolved since then. I do know that our plan was basically "surround and
>> >> drown" and protect the exposures because we sure as hell weren't going
>> >> to put it out. The chance of a titanium fire was not nil since Lockheed
>> >> had/has the Rocket Ranch up above us in Bonnydoon. All sorts of exotic
>> >> things come through town.
>> >>
>> >> Since others mentioned magnesium, I did fight a couple of those types of
>> >> fires. It is occasionally found in engines, and some power tools. It
>> >> will definitely get your attention when you hit it with a hose stream.
>> >> Also very hard to put out with just water. It is generally easier to
>> >> just let it burn.
>> >
>> > (Hal Heydt)
>> > Did you also train on how to put out an oil fire with water?
>>
>> Not exactly. When I first started, Jan 1988, our training wasn't the
>> best. Our department at the time was approximately 35 volunteers with
>> various amounts of training and little ability to teach. These were
>> mostly blue collar guys (and only guys): mail man (Chief), hardware
>> store owner, water company laborers, police detective (Asst. Chief),
>> laborers, paramedic, paid firefighters (a couple), emergency dispatcher,
>> carpenters, contractors, and the like. And the town pharmacist whose
>> father and grandfather had been on years before. Most if not all were
>> born and raised here in Boulder Creek. I was told that I was the first
>> real outsider on the department.
>>
>> The philosophy then was surround and drown oil/gas fires that could not
>> be put out with an ABC extinguisher. It actually works pretty well. 500+
>> gallons applied quickly will knock it down if it is not too big.
>>
>> Later on, we used Compressed Air Foam (CAFS). Even though it was a Type
>> A foam, it worked pretty well on oil fires. It would float on top of the
>> water and suffocate the fire. I liked the stuff. We ran it at 0.3% foam
>> solution with varying amounts of air mixed in. It could have the
>> consistency of thick shaving cream (dry foam) that would stick to a
>> structure, tree, whatever up to the consistency of thin cream of white
>> stuff soup (wet foam) for deep penetration into whatever it was sprayed on.
>>
>> Now there is a big stink over the AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) Class
>> B foam which they are saying is carcinogenic. We never even drilled with
>> that stuff I am happy to say.
>>
>> More than you were looking for? I'm bored and a bored Dave tends to
>> write too long and too much.
>
>I've been looking at putting in solar + battery storage at my home. I'm
>a bit nervous about the fire hazards of having large batteries in the house,
>though the statistics seem pretty good. Adding a fire suppression system
>feels like a good idea.
>
>Both magnesium and lithium will burn in Carbon Dioxide. However, there's
>been experiments with straight argon and argon foams that look promising:
>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01873399

(Hal Heydt)
How well does Halon work?

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <65cd9ea8-e4e0-4a46-b713-c7cdbee2d61en@googlegroups.com>,
>pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, BCFD36 wrote:
>>> On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>

>>I've been looking at putting in solar + battery storage at my home. I'm
>>a bit nervous about the fire hazards of having large batteries in the house,
>>though the statistics seem pretty good. Adding a fire suppression system
>>feels like a good idea.
>>
>>Both magnesium and lithium will burn in Carbon Dioxide. However, there's
>>been experiments with straight argon and argon foams that look promising:
>>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01873399
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>How well does Halon work?

From wikipedia:

Halons can be used on Class K (kitchen oils and greases)
fires, but offer no advantages over specialised foams.

Further:
However, Halon 1301 fire suppression is not completely non-toxic;
very high temperature flame, or contact with red-hot metal, can
cause decomposition of Halon 1301 to toxic byproducts. The presence
of such byproducts is readily detected because they include hydrobromic
acid and hydrofluoric acid, which are intensely irritating.

I suspect the final clause is understated.

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 4:55:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >In article <65cd9ea8-e4e0-4a46...@googlegroups.com>,
> >pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, BCFD36 wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >>>
>
> >>I've been looking at putting in solar + battery storage at my home. I'm
> >>a bit nervous about the fire hazards of having large batteries in the house,
> >>though the statistics seem pretty good. Adding a fire suppression system
> >>feels like a good idea.
> >>
> >>Both magnesium and lithium will burn in Carbon Dioxide. However, there's
> >>been experiments with straight argon and argon foams that look promising:
> >>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01873399
> >
> >(Hal Heydt)
> >How well does Halon work?
> From wikipedia:
>
> Halons can be used on Class K (kitchen oils and greases)
> fires, but offer no advantages over specialised foams.
>
> Further:
> However, Halon 1301 fire suppression is not completely non-toxic;
> very high temperature flame, or contact with red-hot metal, can
> cause decomposition of Halon 1301 to toxic byproducts. The presence
> of such byproducts is readily detected because they include hydrobromic
> acid and hydrofluoric acid, which are intensely irritating.
>
> I suspect the final clause is understated.

That's one of the points made by the article. After posting, I found that argon
Extinguishers are a real thing, but very expensive.

Pt

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 4:07:53 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 4:55:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > >In article <65cd9ea8-e4e0-4a46...@googlegroups.com>,
> > >pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, BCFD36 wrote:
> > >>> On 10/17/22 17:36, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > >>>
> >
> > >>I've been looking at putting in solar + battery storage at my home. I'm
> > >>a bit nervous about the fire hazards of having large batteries in the house,
> > >>though the statistics seem pretty good. Adding a fire suppression system
> > >>feels like a good idea.
> > >>
> > >>Both magnesium and lithium will burn in Carbon Dioxide. However, there's
> > >>been experiments with straight argon and argon foams that look promising:
> > >>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01873399
> > >
> > >(Hal Heydt)
> > >How well does Halon work?
> > From wikipedia:
> >
> > Halons can be used on Class K (kitchen oils and greases)
> > fires, but offer no advantages over specialised foams.
> >
> > Further:
> > However, Halon 1301 fire suppression is not completely non-toxic;
> > very high temperature flame, or contact with red-hot metal, can
> > cause decomposition of Halon 1301 to toxic byproducts. The presence
> > of such byproducts is readily detected because they include hydrobromic
> > acid and hydrofluoric acid, which are intensely irritating.
> >
> > I suspect the final clause is understated.

> That's one of the points made by the article. After posting, I found that argon
> Extinguishers are a real thing, but very expensive.

Also, Halon is a CFC, so it would be banned now, as per the Montreal protocol,
wouldn't it?

Ah; Halon 1301 is Bromodifluoromethane; it's the original Halon, Halon 1211 which
was a CFC, but they kept the brand name for its replacement.

John Savard