I've been frustrated that my 25 watt front porch candle like wick bulbs that last less then a month each. Soooo..
I did a little research regarding replacing them with LED (Light Emitting Diode) bulbs. Here's what I've discovered.CONCLUSIONS Not only will my cameras work better, but each of LED bulbs cost less over the 22 years they are said to last.
Important to me is in regards to the age of my home. It was built in the early 1900's. The wiring is old. By replacing bulbs that use less then 1/6th of the current, it become a safety advantage as well.
In regards to the environment:I see nothing but an up side to converting over to LED's.One last thing. LED's run cool. Almost all power is converted to light. Anyone who has bought a string of the newer LED Christmas lights can easily verify this. One need only touch the bulbs to feel the heat difference between their old string and the LED ones.
A Video On LED Lighting
The Future Of Home Lighting Video
If You Want To Go Really Nuts.. There are LED sound kits already available for your rec room
Though I'm not sure I'd drink before I fire it up :-)
TIP:
When looking for a flashlight, look for one with an LED bulb. This too helps the environment because you will use about 1/6 the number of batteries.
Over the years Sci-Fi writers have alluded to this in such films as "Tron", "The Matrix" and of course the 'holodeck' featured onboard the 'U.S.S. Enterprise' in the Star Trek series. When one takes a look back over 'Star Trek' and it's technological marvels we see eerie similarities of the world we now live in.
The communicators that have become today's cell phones. The memory cards we use today that Captain Kirk once inserted into the U.S.S. Enterprise's computer. The phasers that have evolved into today's lasers. Could the 'holodeck' actually be the world we call reality as well?
Recently an episode of "Eureka" focused on it's characters being induced into a coma like condition. Their brains were wired to a computer whereby they were placed in a virtual world. A world which they were led to believe everything was real. Ok it still sounds kind of screwy. Or does it?
Not necessarily according to some scientists who hope to discover aberrations that might indicate a flaw in the designers of such a program in which we might find ourselves.
Black holes contain all the information of everything they have absorbed on their outer surface. Anything that exists (as we know it) on the inside can be created illusively from just those 2 dimensional patterns (templates) into creating a 3 dimensional universe.
In other words the template contains width and height, but no depth. It would be a matter of reconstructing the 2 dimensions in such a way as to appear that the universe has depth. It is in such a way that this universe can appear endless.
Quantum Physics explains it this way.
This may sound a bit far out, but as we examine how our eyes work this isn't so crazy after all. We have two eyes that each are a few inches part. It is only in the brain that depth is created. Without our brain's perception (a reinterpretation) of a 3rd dimension we'd only be aware of 2 dimensions. Much the same goes for our ears as well.
The key to this all is "perception" A naysayer will say stick your hand into a fire and you'll see what's real. Can we be certain?
Our brains, just like computers, use electrical impulses that are programmed into them. Eyes cannot hear. Ears cannot see. Each serve a function that correlates for what each were designed. Just what if our brains were never 'programmed' to visualize anything beyond what it was designed for? To assimilate the template (informational pattern) on the outer crust of a black hole ('holodeck').
If this be correct this leaves us in a bit of a quandary. Even if we were to succeed in finding aberrations that confirm this hypothesis, other then the knowledge of it, how we could we evolve beyond the situation we'd then find ourselves in?
Some folks may consider my blog and me a bit nuts for posting this but I'm not the only one pondering this very thing.
Originally this was pitched for luxury passenger air travel. Unfortunately since it's first inception the military has provided research funding and that is what will most likely evolve first.
It's quite revolutionary. An entirely new conceptual model for the flying public. Even though the Aeroscraft dwarfs the largest commercial airliners, it requires less net space on the ground than any plane because it doesn't need a runway. The airship takes off and lands like a helicopter, straight up and down.
This is not a Blimp. Unlike its dirigible ancestors, the Aeroscraft is not lighter than air. It's 14 million cubic feet of helium hoist only two-thirds of the craft's weight. Driven by huge rear-ward propellers, it generates enough additional lift to keep the behemoth and its 400-ton payload aloft while cruising. During takeoff and landing, six turbo-fan jet engines push the ship up or ease its descent. It's two-football-fields-long!
It is being developed by a California firm, Worldwide Aeros Corporation, which has created a prototype. The craft would have a range of several thousand miles and, with an estimated top speed of 100-130 mph it could traverse the continental United States in about 20 hours.
During the flight, passengers would view national landmarks just 8,000 feet below. The cavernous interior would easily accommodate such amenities as luxury staterooms, restaurants - - even a casino.
To minimize noise, the aft-mounted propellers will be electric, powered by a renewable source such as hydrogen fuel cells. A sophisticated buoyancy - management system will serve the same purpose as trim on an airplane, allowing for precise adjustments in flight dynamics to compensate for outside conditions and passenger movement. The automated system will draw outside air into compartments throughout the ship and compress it to manage onboard weight.
Here was the concept video for passenger air travel
Here are more details regarding it's design
Like I mentioned earlier the major funding for this air vehicle is now coming from the military.
My hope is in the future the craft will evolve into luxury air cruises for civilian passengers. I suppose developers have to go where the money is provided for now. It would be really nice if the original design for passenger air travel would eventually become a reality. Who knows, maybe the current ocean cruise industry might be interested and someday offer this as part of a cruise package. I for one, would be very interesting in a booking.
I'm not talking about going to a regular hospital or it's out-patient care unit on it's main campus. Here's what I am talking about.
My wife had a microcalcification show up on her annual mammography a few months back. She went to our local surgeon who extracted a sample for biopsy. This minor procedure was done in the doctor's office suite. Our insurance company's accepted charges were close to $400. In the end the costs to us was $78 after insurance paid the rest. Plus the doctor's charges of $138, which we paid $27.60 as our share. So the total costs to us was $105.60.
Since then her doctor has joined a hospital network. From what I gather his "office suite" would now be considered a "out-patient care facility". If she underwent the same procedure it is possible we could be on the hook for a hospital fee of about another $200.
I'm not sure how much of these new additional hospital fees my insurance company would cover, but I can tell you this. We never will know, because in the event we need his services again we will be asking his billing clerk questions and if there are new "hospital fees", forget it. We'll go somewhere else. I simply can't see my insurance company being billed $738 for the same procedure that only a few months ago cost $538. That's a 37% increase!
I certainly have no way of knowing, but I wonder. Did my doctor join this network in lieu of having to pay rent? If that's the case will the doctor lower his $138 charge since he no longer has that overhead? I THINK NOT!
Perhaps the doctor should just put a $200 turnstile outside the waiting room before entering just for the privilege using the facility. It's the same thing. Does it matter whether you pay before entering or getting a bill in the mail a few weeks later?
Patients need to make a statement. Perhaps if this doctor loses enough patients, others will think twice before going this route. Question is, how many people will take a stand?
That's exactly why I posted this information. So that people will make a statement.
Even though this isn't something brand new for a lot of people. It is for our doctor's practice. I want people to become aware if their own doctor switches over and encourage them to take action. Call your doctor. Check if they now have become an "outpatient hospital facility" that imposes this new additional fee. Let them know you no longer will be visiting them if there is. The same goes for the men and child patients as well.
Even though a hospital or it's off campus network treating you may be "in-network", not all of the doctors treating you may be. If they are not, you will be charged at the higher "out-of-network" rate for the physician who provided treatment.
* * *
“The bird hunting a locust is unaware of the hawk hunting him” ~Proverbs~
