Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
some thoughts of my own to add:
I suspect that Class A is a niche product, with the vast majority of amplifiers being Class AB and growing rapidly into Class D. How significant is the contribution to global warming from Class A amplifiers ? could it be less than the contribution from the use of our computers participating on DIY internet forums?
Will Nelson be 'forced' to make a particular type of product - well, perhaps that's for his customers to decide ?
Do we use too much energy - I think the issue is how we get that energy.
In the meantime, let's have some fun with Class A amplifiers
I suspect that Class A is a niche product, with the vast majority of amplifiers being Class AB and growing rapidly into Class D. How significant is the contribution to global warming from Class A amplifiers ? could it be less than the contribution from the use of our computers participating on DIY internet forums?
Will Nelson be 'forced' to make a particular type of product - well, perhaps that's for his customers to decide ?
Do we use too much energy - I think the issue is how we get that energy.
In the meantime, let's have some fun with Class A amplifiers
Last edited:
some thoughts of my own to add:
I suspect that Class A is a niche product, with the vast majority of amplifiers being Class AB and growing rapidly into Class D. How significant is the contribution to global warming from Class A amplifiers ? could it be less than the contribution from the use of our computers participating on DIY internet forums?
Well put, indeed!!!
/RK
You do know the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxon, and the vast majority of "scientists" on that petition are conservative economists, mining engineers, and television weathermen, don't you?
International Conference on Climate Change (2009) - SourceWatch
some thoughts of my own to add:
I suspect that Class A is a niche product, with the vast majority of amplifiers being Class AB and growing rapidly into Class D. How significant is the contribution to global warming from Class A amplifiers ? could it be less than the contribution from the use of our computers participating on DIY internet forums?
Will Nelson be 'forced' to make a particular type of product - well, perhaps that's for his customers to decide ?
Do we use too much energy - I think the issue is how we get that energy.
In the meantime, let's have some fun with Class A amplifiers
That is a good point.
My PC which typically runs 24/7 uses quite a bit more power than my little Class A amp.
On the other hand I am replacing many incandescent bulbs with LED's which will save energy and heat. My kitchen has 9 65 watt incandescent recessed fixtures. Having the kitchen lights on uses much more power than my amp. My mother-in-law who lives with me turns them on everytime she walks past and has not once turned them off.
I guess it all has to be in perspective. If I could turn off my PC and the kitchen lights, I could run my amps for FREE!
Coloradosound,
While you're at it, why not find some tenuous link for Class A amps and abortion? A little politics (and make no mistake, AGW is as much politics as science) mixed into this forum should heat things up nicely.
Merry Christmas,
Garrett
Well 30,000 is definitely more than a few scientists. What do these scientists have to gain, except to be ridiculed by people who believe everything they see on tv.
I can tell you now Scientists don't get paid much money.
How much money has Al Gore made?
At least have a look at some of the raw data, and make your own mind up. It definitely illustrates you can't be too sure on this issue one way or the other.
IngentaConnect ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
and here is a copy of it
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project
That is it from me, I wont talk about this issue anymore. I do get a little upset at times when people preach on what what is the right thing to do regarding "climate change".
There is so much hypocrisy around, and people twisting the truth to suit their agenda these days.
I have personally witnessed this throughout my 14 years as working as a scientist.
So I find it very difficult to trust anything on face value anymore.
The problem with this issue, is that their are so many variables that affect the climate, for anyone to make definitive claim one way or the other is highly arrogant or ignorant.
So to get back to the original thread topic. I would say never.
If I have solar panels on my roof, use a bike as a mode of transport, recycle everthing as well as buy recycled clothing, then I think I can justify to myself it is OK to have a Class A amplifier to listent to music for 2 hours a week.
I am not going to listen to some person who owns two cars, drives to work, has one or two plasma tvs that they watch constantly, and have to buy the latest fashion, and technology every year.
Last edited:
So, what is fundamentally wrong with Exxon? These are people who deliver tangible goods that are essential to our civilization. They see push from parasitical bankers and opportunistic politicians to take away share of oil industry's profits and they do what they can to protect their business.
A few million dollars is a drop in a bucket compared to the funding for "green tech and research" which now amounts to billions of dollars .
Additionally oil profits are measured in billions of dollars, while carbon credit and offset market with all of its derivatives was estimated to be 2 trillion dollars in the next 10 years. All this money will be controlled by Wall Street. Do you really believe that Goldman Sachs and AIG will have the interest of environment on their mind when selling carbon offset insurance and other related derivatives? No, they will issue as many carbon offsets as there will be buyers- in the same fashion they lend money they don't have.
There will be no regulation, just like no one regulated hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of credit default swaps. Carbon Credit Default Swaps anyone?
If you are interested in preventing global warming, demand real solutions and don't just accept some new financial scheme that will have zero effect on environment, but will only make politicians and some voters feel good about themselves.
You do realize who is the original proponent of carbon credits and offsets? Ken Lay of Enron fame. That should tell you all you need to know about this "solution" to "the greatest challenge".
This has been such a contentious issue here in Australia, that the leader of the opposition has been replaced by someone, who is dead set against this emissions trading scheme. Finally we have a choice.
How 'bout this for a "carbon bootprint"?
"The U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, roughly the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006."
I will believe it is a crisis when the people who say it is a crisis start ACTING like it is a crisis.
"The U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, roughly the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006."
I will believe it is a crisis when the people who say it is a crisis start ACTING like it is a crisis.
They will just purchase carbon offsets from Al Gore's company and feel good about themselves. Of course no one will ever get to know if the carbon offsets correspond to something real. Traders will point out that they purchased insurance on the offsets, so even if there is no actual carbon being removed from the atmosphere, someone is covering the cost of the mistake. So all it's good.....
One of my favorite books is "The Structure of Scientific Evolution". It's any easy read which enables people not familiar with peer review journals and "scientific research" to gain insight about research.
My view is that if you rely upon any form of broadcast news, or worse yet newspapers and fluffy magazines, you are doomed to embracing prostitutes for affection.
Nothin like good science warfare to advance knowledge.
Bob
My view is that if you rely upon any form of broadcast news, or worse yet newspapers and fluffy magazines, you are doomed to embracing prostitutes for affection.
Nothin like good science warfare to advance knowledge.
Bob
YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
...but banning inefficient televisions and amps is kind of ignoring an infinite number of much larger elephants in the room.
...but banning inefficient televisions and amps is kind of ignoring an infinite number of much larger elephants in the room.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.