Tampa cops pepper spray a guy to death

[Flint]

Originally Posted by tw

No, I did not say that. Please reread the post. Power cycling clearly does not cause light bulb failure.

I read it, but it isn't clear. I'm not failing to understand--you are failing to explain. Many confuse this.

You state that power cycling does not thin the filament. This is not in question. What is relevant is whether power cycling can cause the instant of failure at which the lightbulb ends its life cycle. You admit that this is the case. You fail to distinguish between long-term and short-term when establishing cause.

Power cycling causes light bulb failure is false in the long-term.
Power cycling causes light bulb failure is true in the short-term.

There are two truths, depending on the specificity employed when stating the question.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Flint

I'm not failing to understand--you are failing to explain.

Power cycling causes light bulb failure is false in the long-term.

Incorrect - according to what I remember from HS science class. Perhaps this seems to explain it better than I did.

Due to the high temperature that a tungsten filament is operated at, some of the tungsten evaporates during use. Furthermore, since no light bulb is perfect, the filament does not evaporate evenly. Some spots will suffer greater evaporation and become thinner than the rest of the filament.
These thin spots cause problems. Their electrical resistance is greater than that of average parts of the filament. Since the current is equal in all parts of the filament, more heat is generated where the filament is thinner. The thin parts also have less surface area to radiate heat away with. This "double whammy" causes the thin spots to have a higher temperature. Now that the thin spots are hotter, they evaporate more quickly.
It becomes apparent that as soon as a part of the filament becomes significantly thinner than the rest of it, this situation compounds itself at increasing speed until a thin part of the filament either melts or becomes weak and breaks.

Link

[tw]

Originally Posted by Flint

What is relevant is whether power cycling can cause the instant of failure at which the lightbulb ends its life cycle. You admit that this is the case. You fail to distinguish between long-term and short-term when establishing cause.

A filament breaking during power cycling is only one of many ways a filament breaks. Nobody said it was the only. Bulbs also flash out while constantly on. Some earlier GOES (weather) satellites failed only in months rather than in 10 years when an 'always on' bulb failed repeatedly.

A failure defined by facts and numbers; voltage and hours of operation. A failure created by events long before its filament breaks.

The point addressed in each relevant post. Those who know only using observation will emotionally assume conclusions. Others who think as an adult will first grasp science or other relevant facts before making any conclusions. Adults know primitive emotions must be controlled, subverted, or manipulated. Because that is what adults do. Decide based upon facts; not upon observation or wild speculation traceable to emotions.

We all learned this even from history. Challenger's O-rings. What caused the failure? Not the O'rings. Those were only symptoms. But again, a conclusion made by thinking like an adult; by not making conclusions only upon observation. That bulb failure during power on is only a symptom; not the reason for failure. A completely different conclusion once one does what all adults must do – first learn facts and numbers.

That emotion is completely different from the emotion of a 16 year old's hug. But again, the common fact. Only an adult who was a child would floor the accelerator because a hug made him feel good.

Why did lynching happen in the old West? Adults who were still children implemented emotionally based justice. An example similar to why seven Challenger astronauts were murdered. Wild speculation due to observation to blame bulb failure on power cycling is also only emotion. Emotion proved seven strangers conspired to rape and murder a woman in Norfolk. Or knew six dead in Ohio deserved to be shot. Or knew a 15 year old murdered and surgically castrated an ex-girlfriend in CO. Or knew murdering 3000 on 11 September was good. Or decided a massacre of Tutsis in Central Africa was necessary.

Where were any of these justified by adults acting like adults? Common factor in every case: decisions were based only in their emotions.

Nobody said emotions do not or should not exist. But any adult who lets emotions make a decision is irresponsible. Emotions are a primitive function that primitive creatures and children use to make decisions. No cop has a luxury to justify actions using their feelings. For the same reason why top management had no right to quash every attempt to save seven Columbia astronauts. All examples of adults acting like children or primitive creatures.

Adults learn what is always required to know something. That was even taught in junior high science.

Anyone can test themself. Did you assume into a fact that power cycling causes bulb failure? Or decide to be informed as an adult does to make a conclusion? A cop must think logically even before pressing a trigger. Must learn to quash unacceptable emotions much faster – to make an adult decision.

UT’s original post is, apparently, an example of what happens when adults think like children. Felony prosecution applies if an adult did not think logically.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by tw

A filament breaking during power cycling is only one of many ways a filament breaks. Nobody said it was the only.

You're right. Nobody, including me, said that.