Ed Browne wrote:

> > > Although I haven't tried this, I can
> > > imagine some bulbs might peak in a particular spectral area and then
begin
> > > decreasing as color temperature is increased.
> >
> > While possible in theory this is not the case for normal filament bulbs.
> > These bulbs are actually very efficient in converting electrical energy
into
> > radiation.  The problem is that most of this radiation is at longer than
> > visible wavelengths.  The spectral distribution of this radiation is
> > governed by the black body radiation law of physics.  Surface coatings
can
> > have some effect, but mostly filament bulbs follow the black body
radiation
> > pattern, which is only a function of temperature.  A bulb with a
filament
> > temperature to maximize the radiation fraction at visible wavelengths is
not
> > practical with any material available to us due to the filament
temperature
> > required.
>
> Olin, do you ever fully read a paragraph or do you always dissect each
> sentence as a stand-alone?

I often skim over messages or skip messages entirely when I don't care about
the subject.  I'm not too interested in questions like "I built this PIC
programmer from a diagram I saw at www.catch-viruses-here.org and can't get
it to work.  I know I built everything perfectly and my program couldn't
have any errors in it and I've already spent two days on it and I'm
frustrated and its all your fault for knowing more about PICs than me so you
owe it to me to look thru my undocumented code and tell me exactly what's
wrong with my PIC."

In your case I did read the whole message, although I don't remember what
your overall point was.  Apparently I had nothing to add.

However, I do try to respond to incorrect statements whenever I notice them.
Since these messages are archived and many newbies are listening, I think it
is important to respond quickly whenever an incorrect statement is made.
People could assume any unchallanged statement is true.  I've noticed that
incorrect statements about PICs usually get pounced on quickly, but for some
reason many people are much more willing to play fast and loose with the
laws of physics.  I'm not.

I'm surprised you seem to have taken offense at my response.  The
surrounding text didn't qualify this statement any more, so there was no
point duplicating it.  You also seemed to be admitting you weren't sure with
phrases like "I haven't tried this" and "I can imagine".  Not that it would
have mattered, but it didn't seem like you had any ego invested in that
statement.


********************************************************************
Olin Lathrop, embedded systems consultant in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, olin@embedinc.com, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body