I was comparing graphics cards for my HTPC when I noticed the specs included the annual running cost of the card. I was disgusted to find that a graphics card upgrade could add $100 to my electricity bill. This led me on a very random thought process in support of my hatred of small drivers with a large Xmax.
My mind travelled to the incandescent light bulb which as virtually banned in all developed countries due to their inefficient nature. An LED requires 8 watts to produce the same output as a 60w traditional bulb.
This brings me back to the subject of small subwoofers. The Panasonic SB-HW560 boasts an SPL of 78dB, effectively meaning it needs around 50 watts to produce the output volume a good 12" sub can with just 1 watt.
For the sake of the planet small subs should be banned.
My mind travelled to the incandescent light bulb which as virtually banned in all developed countries due to their inefficient nature. An LED requires 8 watts to produce the same output as a 60w traditional bulb.
This brings me back to the subject of small subwoofers. The Panasonic SB-HW560 boasts an SPL of 78dB, effectively meaning it needs around 50 watts to produce the output volume a good 12" sub can with just 1 watt.
For the sake of the planet small subs should be banned.
Hoffman's Iron Law. If smaller and lower bass are desired, power requirements increase.
If you mean BIG as B I G, then you can decrease power consumption. But, who wants a fridge sized sub in their room?
Even 10" subs with ~84-86dB sensitivity require larger boxes unless you boost via pi filter or DSP. In essence, this peaking filtration still will require larger power consumption to boost the low end and retrieve the bass required in smaller volumes.
There is NO FREE LUNCH here when trying to argue with Hoffman.
Wolf
If you mean BIG as B I G, then you can decrease power consumption. But, who wants a fridge sized sub in their room?
Even 10" subs with ~84-86dB sensitivity require larger boxes unless you boost via pi filter or DSP. In essence, this peaking filtration still will require larger power consumption to boost the low end and retrieve the bass required in smaller volumes.
There is NO FREE LUNCH here when trying to argue with Hoffman.
Wolf
The incandescent lightbulb is 100% efficient at converting electricity into light and heat. If you live in a place where you're heating your house with electricity most months of the year, converting to "efficient" bulbs can be an almost useless exercise.
Furthermore, the light emitted by LED bulbs is not healthy because the human metabolism is dependent on certain spectra of light that typical LED bulbs don't produce. If you expose yourself to blue light first thing in the morning without sufficient yellow, orange, red and infra-red, your mitochondria's ability to produce energy in your cells in impaired.
Anyone still heats their house with direct electricity these days?
That is how it used to be 20 years back perhaps. At least where I live. (Sweden)
Using heat pumps cuts the electric consumption for heating by 3 to 5 times.
I agree with the OP, as the industry continue their ruthless hunt for ever grater powerdensity for the sake of convenience and money, the standard touring 218 bass reflex is now a 10kW powereating monstrosity with horrendously low efficiency, and they are ugly, and I don't like them, and they are boring and so on, all facts.
We all have to make sacrifices, so bring back the horns and limit the downward lf range to 40Hz, cabinets will be a bit bigger and heavier, which means healthier roadies, and horns will sound better, use half the driver complement, and as we all know horns has a rock'n'roll coolness about them that BR simply cannot touch.
We all have to make sacrifices, so bring back the horns and limit the downward lf range to 40Hz, cabinets will be a bit bigger and heavier, which means healthier roadies, and horns will sound better, use half the driver complement, and as we all know horns has a rock'n'roll coolness about them that BR simply cannot touch.
This makes no sense. Ignoring the pedantic argument that no transfer of energy is 100% efficient, and that the efficiency should be relevant to primary function of the device, your argument has other issues. As heat rises, why would you want to put heaters on the ceiling?
Loss is defined as energy produced outside of the intended function. By your measure a car with broken exhaust system is more efficient because more of the energy is converted into sound waves.
I'm quite happy to get heat from my incandescent bulbs. Your loss is my gain, LOL. BTW, not all my light bulbs are mounted on the ceiling. If that's a concern, ceiling fans with light sockets are readily available, and as a bonus, you get heat from the ceiling fan motor.
Regardless, what seems to be lost is the most important part of my post: your mitochondria and their metabolism of energy are fundamental to your health. If you start your day with LED bulbs or a cell phone or computer screen, your energy metabolism is impaired for the entire day because your body thinks it's already noon and time to slow it down.
The scientist, whose name I can't remember, indicated that this effect was even more important than what food you eat. Saving a few dollars for "more efficient" light production seems false economy to me.
Regardless, what seems to be lost is the most important part of my post: your mitochondria and their metabolism of energy are fundamental to your health. If you start your day with LED bulbs or a cell phone or computer screen, your energy metabolism is impaired for the entire day because your body thinks it's already noon and time to slow it down.
The scientist, whose name I can't remember, indicated that this effect was even more important than what food you eat. Saving a few dollars for "more efficient" light production seems false economy to me.
Forgot to address the broken exhaust argument: many vehicles would be more efficient with a broken exhaust system due to overly restrictive exhaust systems causing large pumping losses. The sound production is so trivial as to be completely swamped by orders of magnitude by the heat losses in an internal combustion engine.
You've defeated your own argument.
With regard to your other issue - a lot of crackpot scientists say a lot of crazy things. Without performing any research I surmise the theory to be largely debunked by: Eskimos, submariners, prisoners and others.
I don't tend to run my internal combustion engines inside my house due to carbon monoxide concerns, but fortunately the heat from incandescent bulbs is produced exceptionally cleanly, with the minor exception of roasting dust. Speaking of defeating one's own argument, ad hominem attacks are one of the quickest routes. Congratulations!
The importance of light quality to human health is a well accepted concept in both the "conventional" and "alternative" (more properly called "classic" or "real") realms of medicine. I presume you're one that believes that disease is a product of pharmaceutical deficiency?
The importance of light quality to human health is a well accepted concept in both the "conventional" and "alternative" (more properly called "classic" or "real") realms of medicine. I presume you're one that believes that disease is a product of pharmaceutical deficiency?
I hope you're constipated, this may take you a while: mitochondria atp light - Search Results - PubMed
There was no ad hominem attack. I was simply pointing out the 'flexibility' of your nonsensical argument. You cannot claim that the heat produced by an incandescent light bulb contributes towards its efficiency but describe heat generated by an internal combustion as a 'loss'.
There are issues on social media that I do not understand, gullibility to fake news is one of them. Most ridiculous statements can be dismissed by a mere millisecond's thought, validating the new information against your own knowledge:
e.g. "The scientist, whose name I can't remember, indicated that this effect was even more important than what food you eat."
Submariners spend 6 months underwater without natural light - they don't die.I'm not convinced that health would better if they went 6 months without food.
Your ad hominem was "crackpot." You cannot use the wasted heat in an ICE to heat your house. You can use the heat from an incandescent light bulb to heat your house; in fact you have no choice in that matter. It's apples and oranges.
Too often people dismiss something because their narcissism tells them that if they're not aware of it yet, it's not true. You've obviously not bothered to read any of the available science about mitochondria. There is nothing we are discussing that is in any way dependent on the content of social media. I 'm not sure what the relevance of that is supposed to be.
The comparison of light quality to food quality was not about total abstinence from either; it was about quality. The point is that poor quality light can have more detrimental effects on your body's handling of energy production within its cells than poor quality food. You seem to make up straw men as required in an attempt to advance your poor arguments.
Too often people dismiss something because their narcissism tells them that if they're not aware of it yet, it's not true. You've obviously not bothered to read any of the available science about mitochondria. There is nothing we are discussing that is in any way dependent on the content of social media. I 'm not sure what the relevance of that is supposed to be.
The comparison of light quality to food quality was not about total abstinence from either; it was about quality. The point is that poor quality light can have more detrimental effects on your body's handling of energy production within its cells than poor quality food. You seem to make up straw men as required in an attempt to advance your poor arguments.