Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!kitty!larry
From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: incandescent light bulb life extender (Bogus Advice Warning)
Summary: Evaluate John DeArmond's veracity with just a phone call...
Message-ID: <4250@kitty.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 90 20:47:25 GMT
References: <4247@kitty.UUCP> <5297@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY
Lines: 228

In article <5297@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:

	I will make this as brief as possible, and leave it up to readers
to draw their own conclusions.

	I urge any interested readers to carefully re-read my previous
article and compare it to Mr. DeArmond's response.  Note the numerous
items he failed to respond to, and note what tangents he created to avoid
the central issues.  Note how he avoided comment on the issue of how
a lamp fixture modification can void an insurance policy - which was
probably the single most important point that I was trying to convey!

> [An amazing and most likely fabricated investigative quest description 
> deleted.]

	Amazing indeed, but not exactly fabricated.  As an example, for
the small price of a short telephone call any reader wishing to verify
certain facts that I presented may contact the Tennessee Secretary of
State (615/741-2816) and the Georgia Secretary of State (404/656-2817),
both agencies being more than willing to furnish information over the
telephone.

	While at first glance perhaps being irrelevant, the simple point
made in the second portion of my previous article is that a person making
egregious misrepresentations on one topic, as I have *proven* in the case
of Mr. DeArmond, is likely to make misrepresentations on *any* topic.

> I never claimed that the rectifier buttons had caused any fires and I
> don't believe the other fellow did either

	Mr. DeArmond seems to have a short memory:

$$> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
$$> >    The funny part here is that while ul listed, these button type jobs are
$$> >a common cause of fires, and very popular (winning) lawsuit item.

$$> By the time they had failed and shorted under 
$$> 100 watt bulbs, they had emitted a large quantity of smoke and had 
$$> fried to a blakened crisp.  *I* consider them a fire hazard after my
$$> experience.

> >	It may also help readers to know that typical base temperatures
> >of incandescent lamps in the range of 60 to 100 watts run from 194 to
> >208 deg F (data taken from NFPA handbook).  
> 
> As usual, Larry backs up his arguments with rote dissertations from a
> book.   Since  "typical" rarely occurs outside the printed page, I prefer
> to make in situ measurements of the actual conditions involved.  I'll
> allow the reader to determine whether  "typical" values from a text or
> measured values are more appropriate in a given situation.  

	Apparently Mr. DeArmond has never encountered the concepts of
sampling, variance, distributions and statistics.  So, Mr. DeArmond claims
to have made perhaps *one* measurement on *one* light bulb, and now he knows
more accurate information than the NFPA!

	Poor Mr. DeArmond! - he cannot appreciate the humor of his own
naivete.

> >	What Mr. DeArmond failed to find in his Digi-Key catalog, because
> >it was somewhat buried at the upper right hand corner of a page which
> >otherwise listed varistors, was the one series which actually is suitable
> >for power inrush limiting.  Those thermistors, the Keystone CL-series,
> >have 18 AWG and 22 AWG wire leads, are quite suitable for lamp or power
> >applications, and have explicitly specified current ratings from 1.1 to
> >12 amps.  The best part is that at full rated current THEY DON'T GET ANY
> >HOTTER THAN 25 DEG C.
> 
> Yes, the Keystone parts are quite adequate, but the panasonic ones are
> too.  I'm not arguing against the Keystone or any other similiar part,
> I'm arguing based on actual experimental results that the Panasonic part
> works quite well.

	The two components cost about the same money, the Keystone part
is specifically designed for the application, and the Keystone part gets
no hotter than ambient temperature.  The Panasonic part is not recommended
for the application, Mr. DeArmond admits that it rises in temperature by
60 deg C above ambient, Mr. DeArmond is operating it at least 400% above
its rating, and he concludes "it works quite well"!  Not to mention the
other issues raised in my previous article...

> Let's look at a hard example.  I pulled the dimmer from a fixture in my
> house and looked at it.  [nonsense deleted]

	I won't play Mr. DeArmond's game and get off on a tangent.  It
seems that Mr. DeArmond would like to forget the real issues:

1.	Is modification of wiring in a light fixture, per Mr. DeArmond's
	suggestion, a building code violation, and can it void insurance
	coverage in the event of a fire?

2.	Is Mr. DeArmond's suggestion a potentially dangerous misapplication
	of a thermistor?

3.	Did Mr. DeArmond tell us a bogus story about his "test results",
	in view of the actual specifications of the device in question??

> After thinking about it for a minute, I decided to make another test.
> I took a PNT-124 8 ohm thermister out to my metal shop and connected
> it to my DC welder power supply. [more nonsense deleted]

	My gawd, another tangent - allegedly testing the thermistor on a
DC welder, no less!  Does Mr. DeArmond think that if he wastes enough
lines on enough tangents that readers will tire and forget the real issues?

> >	Yet, Mr. DeArmond says: "The part will rise about 60 degrees C
> >over ambient when in operation".  I believe he means room temperature
> >ambient here, but even if he means fixture ambient, the end result is
> >the same: component failure.
> 
> And yet they don't fail.  Is it magic?  I think not.  It is the  result
> of careful experimentation and design. Learn how to read a spec sheet,
> Larry, and then do some experimental work to verify the applicability of
> the datasheet.  Learn  what the term "specsmanship" means.   Be creative
> and never take a spec sheet at face value.  You might slip up and
> find a use for something that the manufacturer never imagined.

	Mr. DeArmond's argument is absurd beyond belief.  When a real
engineer specifies say, a 1 watt resistor, is an actual application
likely to require dissipation of 0.75 watts or 4.0 watts?  If we are
to take Mr. DeArmond's advice, we should exceed all ratings by at least
400%, or until slightly less than failure conditions - whichever comes
first!

> If you think my data is so bogus Larry, why don't you simply repeat the
> tests.

	I did.  Mr. DeArmond had the misfortune of picking a thermistor
vendor and series which I use, I have experience with, I have extensive
data on, and which I have extensive inventory of.

	But don't any reader take my word for this - just call Panasonic
and ask to speak with an application engineer.  Panasonic ought to know
their own components better than anyone else!

	Also, if a reader really wants to know about the Panasonic
thermistor specifications, I will be glad to fax them the 9 pages of data
which are applicable (provided that I don't get inundated with requests;
this offer does not apply to Mr. DeArmond or a shill in his behalf).

> We know why you don't, of course.

	You guessed wrong, Mr. DeArmond.  I do my "homework".

> Tell you what, guy.  Why don't we just cut to the chase and be done
> with it.  I'll put my experimental results up for 3rd party verification
> and make the results available here.

	Human nature being what it is, Mr. DeArmond knows that no one
will actually go to that much trouble since it would require considerable
time, communication and coordination among various people.  So, Mr. DeArmond
bluffs and hopes to plant a seed of doubt.  What *else* can a person with
Mr. DeArmond's ego do?  Actually admit he told a Tall Tale?

	However, in the beginning of this article I made it easy for a
reader to ascertain Mr. DeArmond's veracity in a 5-minute telephone call.
Now *that* is something a curious reader may actually do.

	Any takers?  [refer back to my previous article for details to
be verified].

> What follows is strictly my opinion.  If you don't want to read further,
> go to the next article. 

	A two-section article.  Just like mine.  I'm truly honored that
Mr. DeArmond wishes to emulate my writing style.

> It is probably a waste of time to even attempt
> to address these lies so I won't.

	Mr. DeArmond cannot very well refute the *truth*.  Some of those
"lies" were pretty serious, if they were in fact "lies".  One might think
that Mr. DeArmond would refute just one "lie", though, to prove his point.

> I suppose it is to be expected that successful people make a few enemies.
> There are people in this world who are so insecure that they terribly
> resent others who have bootstrapped themselves up under adverse
> conditions.

	You're right, Mr. DeArmond -  I am envious of your "7 digit" income
and all of your "trappings of success", especially the 500 sq-ft underground
bunker in your house. :-)

> At least I'm honest enough to admit my lack of that credential.

	It has only been since the formation of misc.jobs.contract that
Mr. DeArmond has admitted his lack of education and credentials - so that
he could regale readers in that group with his allegedly vast self-made
business successes.  In various prior articles, however, Mr. DeArmond has
claimed to be a "health physicist", and has dispensed advice about
radiation safety issues.  Nothing like a self-taught "health physicist"!
Sort of like a self-taught "brain surgeon", if anyone fails to get the
point.

> Perhaps I should get mad and get a lawyer or worse.  Maybe I will before 
> it's over.

	Please do that, Mr. DeArmond.  I *love* to testify in court, and
so far I have a 1000 batting average: no client for whom I have testified
as an expert witness in product liability and forensic science matters
has ever failed to win their case or otherwise obtain a favorable out of
court settlement.  Also, I freely admit that testifying as an expert
witness is the *ultimate* "ego trip", and it's also the ultimate mind game
when the defense tries to pick apart one's testimony. 

	Will this be your "corporate attorney" you always refer to in
misc.jobs.contract?  You know, the attorney who apparently must tell you
it's okay to not file your state corporation reports and tax returns so
that the state revokes the charter of your corporation, and that it's
okay to operate using a defunct corporation name.

> What I
> discovered as I began to swap email with other of Larry's victims is this
> model of his personality that I've described here. 

	By all means, I encourage my other "victims" to come forward and
denounce me and my "lies"!

> Larry, I do hope you get help with your problem. You'll live a much
> happier life for it. We'll be rooting for you.  

	Mr. DeArmond is right, I have a problem: I dislike liars and
braggarts, especially those who give advice that if actually followed
could result in harm to others.

Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231   {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   716/741-9635                  {utzoo, uunet}!/      \aerion!larry