Re: Boxes. What's next?

On Apr 14, 5:08 pm, "Norman M. Schwartz" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aren't hypotheses advanced as a consequence of observation? If the only time
I've ever witnessed bulbs fail is upon power on, what next? I've also seen
the filaments in small 4W and 7W 'night-light' lamps break and/or fail after
being dropped or jarred. Would it be safe to advance the hypothesis that
these filaments are damaged by impact or do I first need to acquire an
engineering degree?

An excellent question. It addresses the concepts of intuitive
reasoning verses deductive reasoning. For example, Einstein’s
reasoning that a light ray should appear to bend inside an
accelerating rocket led to his hypothesis that gravity can bend
light. It proved nothing - inductive reasoning. But it was the
driving force behind his deductive conclusions we now call the general
theory of relativity.

Using only observation, power cycling does cause light bulb damage.
However, bulb failure that occurs during power on always occurs with
someone there. Whereas bulb failure during constant power on is often
not observed. One reason for the resulting speculation: “observation
bias”.

Moving on, the science says normal operation causes a light bulb
filament to vaporize. Vaporized filament inside the glass (black
spots) explains why a gentle shock during power on easily destroys a
filament. Terminal damage from normal operation is necessary before
power on can cause any bulb failure. But again, those who know only
from observation do not see that 'normal operation' damage – only see
the resulting failure during power on. Power on did not cause that
damage - the deposits. But observation falsely blames power on.

Instead, use deductive reasoning based upon known facts. An industry
bible (IES Lightning Handbook) even lists equations for light bulb
failure based upon the two parameters - hours of operation and
voltage. One who first learned these facts would never blame power on
for failure. But those who don’t learn this stuff are too quick to
cast blame only using speculation.

So, inductive reasoning based upon observation: light bulb failed
during power on. A hypothesis based only in speculation. When we try
to prove that hypothesis using facts and concepts of how bulbs
operate, well, the hypothesis falls apart. But the hypothesis made
one important contribution. It caused us to further investigate;
learn the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of light bulb operation. Leads us to
conclusions based in deductive reasoning. Then we learn that darken
glass and well proven industry equations demonstrate what really
caused failure: hours of operation and voltage (filament temperature
and light intensity being a result of voltage). Inductive reasoning
cause us to speculate, learn why speculation was wrong, AND what the
real facts are.

Speculation is how to start deductive reasoning. And valid
conclusions come only from deductive reasoning. Jumping to
conclusions using inductive reasoning is called wild speculation or
junk science. Observation does not say why. But observation is one
way of starting deductive reasoning.

Same applies to computer life expectancy. Observation alone only
results in junk science conclusions. However observation is how one
might start the search for knowledge.

Meanwhile electronics damage is so well understood by so many others
who long ago learned using deductive reasoning. Power on does not
explain electronics damage. Stress due to thermal cycling is almost
zero. If thermal cycling (tens of degrees) caused stress and damage,
then electronics repeatedly thermal cycled hundreds of degrees during
manufacture would never work. Again, numbers trash that speculation.

So what is the most common reason for failure? Manufacturing
defects. Swelling electrolytic capacitors were an extreme example.
Aerospace engineering - where we had to also explain why failures
happened - made it especially obvious that manufacturing defects are
the most common reason for premature failure. Instead, too many will
blame surges, heat, or power cycling for two reasons. 1) because they
did not first do the deductive reasoning and 2) because they are quick
to first blame things they don't understand. Urban myth conclusions
based in inductive reasons; not in deductive reasoning.

We start with observation, speculation, and inductive reasoning to
build the hypothesis. But to know something requires deductive
reasoning. That means the hypothesis must be well proven by other
known facts and concepts (the theory). And the hypothesis also must
be proven by experimentation. Both are required to actually know
something.

Observation (inductive reasoning) is how to start to get there.
Conclusions only based in observation or speculation is called junk
science.

Power on does not harm light bulbs. Light bulb life expectancy is
defined by hours of operation and by voltage. Well proven facts. But
those who only know using observation or speculation would deny this
reality.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boxes. Whats next?
    ... reasoning verses deductive reasoning. ... power cycling does cause light bulb damage. ... One reason for the resulting speculation: ... use deductive reasoning based upon known facts. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: A federal judge rewrites the Constitution on war powers. (WSJ editorial)
    ... I think you might find Glenn's reasoning interesting, ... sloppy vs. sloppy is no way to run a government or a loyal ... Justice Joseph Story"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful ... Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Lightbulb life, curiousity
    ... > Take a 120 volt light bulb rated for 1500 hours. ... Longer if power cycled. ... >power cycling - and then declard that speculation as fact. ... >learns the well proven industry numbers? ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Sending power into rig unused for 30 years : Precautions ?
    ... Should I use a high resistance ... the bulb the longer it'll take to charge ... the power supply fully and the lower the final voltage will be. ... Variac or similar variable-voltage transformer. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew)
  • Re: LEDs and Capcoms: Whats the Deal?
    ... uumm, if you reduce the bulb consumption by 100w, and the mains supply ... Other areas where you might not save power are: ... with a transformer with 100w less capacity on the primary (to reduce ... is primarily motivated by power savings. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)