Rant of the day

[LCHIEN]

My rant of the day is media outlets that can't get technical details correct.

A graphic from AGI (Analytic Graphics Inc) which clains to provide software to national security and space professionals for integrated analyses and visualization of land, sea, air, and space assets.
is widely published by many sources on the internet and contains at least one glaring error. The error is that they claim the asteroid passes closer to the earth than GPS satellites. This was the headline with the graphic video repeated by many outlets including Reuters, USA Today, New York Post, Fox News, etc.

It states that at closest approach DA14 will be 17,200 miles from earth. you go on to state that DA14 passes closer to the earth than GPS and broadcast satellites.
Broadcast satellites are mostly in geosynchronous orbit at 22,000 miles so that is correct. That hieght is specially chosen because onjects at that altitude make one orbit of the earth every day so that they stay precisely over head of any area when in an equatorial orbit.
But It's been known to me and many others that GPS satellites are in circular semi-synchronous orbits (once per 12 hours) that are about 12,000 miles high. Meaning that your statement regarding closer than GPS is completely wrong.

Maybe they thought GPS was in synchronous orbits, or maybe the confused miles and km (DA14 was 27,000 km from earth). Either way, isn't anyone doing technical/science fact checking???

Maybe you think this is trivial but its a 2X error. Not only that but its misleading because the bulk of our satellites are in low earth orbit only 100 miles high, talking only about the high earth orbits makes it seem like its a lot closer than it is.

[TB Roye]

But that doesn't make a good story. A little inaccuracy nevery hurt a new story, truthful one are boring.

Tom

[cabinetman]

But that doesn't make a good story. A little inaccuracy nevery hurt a new story, truthful one are boring.

Tom

+1. Whatever it takes to explain something. Some people are still stuck on light years, while others are waiting for a good explanation of gravity.

.

[leehljp]

To me, The majority of news companies are much like some tool companies - one generic source and everybody else re-brands it as their own. Every flaw/error is passed on without fact checking!

[LinuxRandal]

Seems like they did their job. Report the news in a way that your talking about it, and your going back to their sites. (sensationalize things enough for dumb or angry people to keep coming back)

Seen the same thing with legal stuff, and several computer lawsuits. It is why I prefer Groklaw for that kind of news.

So, they got to you did they?

[woodturner]

My rant of the day is media outlets that can't get technical details correct.

Or even simple details.

The media has widely reported on the "incandescent light bulb ban" - which is complete myth (the law requires 25% greater efficiency, but does not ban any bulbs). That was bad enough - but you may have seen the article this past week reported by the technical editor in an EE journal perpetuating this myth. When the supposed "experts" repeat the error, one really has to wonder.

[All Thumbs]

Or even simple details.

The media has widely reported on the "incandescent light bulb ban" - which is complete myth (the law requires 25% greater efficiency, but does not ban any bulbs). That was bad enough - but you may have seen the article this past week reported by the technical editor in an EE journal perpetuating this myth. When the supposed "experts" repeat the error, one really has to wonder.

Are there any companies that will produce incandescent bulbs that hit that 25% greater efficiency?

If not, it is effectively a ban.

[woodturner]

Are there any companies that will produce incandescent bulbs that hit that 25% greater efficiency?

Yes, they are readily available in the box stores.

If not, it is effectively a ban.

It's not really a "ban" even if companies stop making them - it is not an edict or law that prohibits manufacture. For example, the freon ban really is a ban - it's illegal to import or make R12.

It's likely that companies will eventually stop making incandescents as demand plummets. CFLs or LEDs are a much better option and consumers are switching to these lamps to save money.

[All Thumbs]

Yes, they are readily available in the box stores.

I'm relieved to hear they are going to continue making incandescent bulbs, as I imagine there are uses where the CFL/LED won't work as well (full spectrum light comes to mind). So what are these higher-efficiency bulbs called? How to I find them at homedepot.com or lowes.com?

[LCHIEN]

I'm relieved to hear they are going to continue making incandescent bulbs, as I imagine there are uses where the CFL/LED won't work as well (full spectrum light comes to mind). So what are these higher-efficiency bulbs called? How to I find them at homedepot.com or lowes.com?

Are there any companies that will produce incandescent bulbs that hit that 25% greater efficiency?

If not, it is effectively a ban.

The halogen bulbs are incandescants with a halogen gas filling, they are more efficient. I think they claim a halogen bulb using 72 watts makes light output of an old 100W bulb... which beats the 25% requirement. GE, Philips, and others. See the link below.

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/72...bs__u5882.html

[woodturner]

I'm relieved to hear they are going to continue making incandescent bulbs, as I imagine there are uses where the CFL/LED won't work as well (full spectrum light comes to mind). So what are these higher-efficiency bulbs called? How to I find them at homedepot.com or lowes.com?

It's not obvious from the packaging or bulb that they are any different than the "old" style. Since the new requirements went into effect in January, most of the bulbs available in the box stores do meet the new requirements.

HD has a page for incandescent light bulbs, and if you set your local store, it will show what is in stock at that store. The GE Reveal bulbs seem to be the best option in this area, but are still more expensive than CFLs (utilities are subsidizing CFLs, so they are free or nearly free - six for a dollar for the "better" bulbs).

The Halogen bulbs LCHIEN mentioned are a good alternative as well.

[All Thumbs]

Good to know, thanks guys.

[Skaning]

Original Rant

Loren I couldn't agree with you more about the press and technical goofs. I spent my career with NASA in SE VA. Local Paper used to have a e\reporte that never could get a story correct. Virtually every time she put out a story there was at least one technical error and usually more. Got to be a standing joke around the center. But, she was a relative of the papers founder so...

Your comment of KM vs Miles reminded me of one of the JPL Martian probes that bored into the planets surface instead of soft landing. Failure review found a mixup in the software between nautical miles and statute miles. Isn't just journalists that can't get it right.

[TB Roye]

Gravity = what happed to my chest as I grew older it is now in my belly. If I said that about a women I would be dead, like the media you have to PC about somethings.

Tom

[gsmittle]

Just out of curiosity (if this should be a new thread lemme know) did the asteroid perturb any geosync orbits?

g.