Searching \ for '[EE] LEDs as lighting' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=leds
Search entire site for: 'LEDs as lighting'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] LEDs as lighting'
2006\02\27@202747 by Jason

flavicon
face
For a project I'm working on, I had to build a panel of 50 superbright LEDs
on a 2.5x3.5" panel.  I thought that while I had it, I could do some
experimenting with LED lighting.

I find the results very disappointing.  I have a flashlight with a single 1
watt luxeon LED that looks at least 10 times brighter than my panel when I
shine them on the wall (and the flashlight is spread out more).

I'm running the LEDs at 20mA each, and each one has it's normal 'blinding'
brightness when I look at it head on.  It seems like it will take thousands
and more power than an incandescent bulb to light the room.

Is there some trick to using LEDs as area lighting or are normal 5mm LEDs
just not suitable?


2006\02\27@203619 by Juan Cubillo

flavicon
face
I've been thinking of changing the 100W lightbulb in my room to LEDs.
I still don't knokw if it's better to use the luxeon LEDs ($10-$15 each) or
several
10mm or 5mm ultra-bright leds. Like the ones sold on Ebay...

If what you say is true, I think the answer is to go with the luxeon LEDs.
Juan Cubillo


{Original Message removed}

2006\02\27@210316 by Richardson

flavicon
face
Good article on LEDs as lights.

http://www.dansdata.com/danletters159.htm

You might be suprised... :-(
{Original Message removed}

2006\02\27@212505 by rosoftwarecontrol

flavicon
face
I red somewhere, led light intensity
is still 10 times below incandescent bulb.
Wait till it becomes as 1 times.


{Original Message removed}

2006\02\28@013600 by William Chops Westfield
face picon face

On Feb 27, 2006, at 5:35 PM, Juan Cubillo wrote:

> I've been thinking of changing the 100W lightbulb in my room to LEDs.

That'll take a lot of LEDs.   IIRC, white LEDs are currently somewhat
more efficient than incandescents, but still less efficient than
fluorescents.  To equal a 100W filament bulb, you'll probably need
20 to 60W worth of LEDs.

> I still don't knokw if it's better to use the luxeon LEDs
> ($10-$15 each)

On the bright side (hah hah!), Luxeons have recently had a
substantial price cut, and are only about $4 each (for Lux III!)

> or several 10mm or 5mm ultra-bright leds. [as] sold on Ebay..

Currently there still seems to be a longevity problem with
white LEDs, especially with the chinese imports...

BillW

2006\02\28@070735 by olin piclist

face picon face
Juan Cubillo wrote:
> I've been thinking of changing the 100W lightbulb in my room to LEDs.
> I still don't knokw if it's better to use the luxeon LEDs ($10-$15
> each) or several
> 10mm or 5mm ultra-bright leds. Like the ones sold on Ebay...

A compact flourescent would be far better in terms of cost and energy
efficiency.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\02\28@080858 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jason wrote:

> I'm running the LEDs at 20mA each, and each one has it's normal 'blinding'
> brightness when I look at it head on.  It seems like it will take thousands
> and more power than an incandescent bulb to light the room.

Not sure what the voltage of your LEDs is, but it's probably around 2...3V.
That makes this 40...60mW of input power per LED. Do the math -- with LEDs
having a similar efficiency as incandescent bulbs you're probably not far
off with your estimate of thousands of LEDs to reach the light output of a
60W or 100W incandescent :)

Gerhard

2006\02\28@081555 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
I was looking into swapping the incandescents bulbs in my room (3 pieces)
with arrays of 10 luxeon led's each (Luxeon V). I emailed the manufacturer
to ask what 30 Luxeon V, bright white would cos me and they came back with
this ridiculous price of something like US $15 each. I am definitely not
swapping any bulbs for leds anytime soon.

2006\02\28@100700 by mrgizmo

flavicon
face
Cheapest I found the led III was $11.50 shipping included.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Chops Westfield" <spam_OUTwestfwTakeThisOuTspammac.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting


{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\02\28@124044 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Olin wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Tue, Feb 28 at 06:10:
> Juan Cubillo wrote:
> > I've been thinking of changing the 100W lightbulb in my room to LEDs.
> > I still don't knokw if it's better to use the luxeon LEDs ($10-$15
> > each) or several
> > 10mm or 5mm ultra-bright leds. Like the ones sold on Ebay...
>
> A compact flourescent would be far better in terms of cost and energy
> efficiency.

Feit Electric makes some really neat "daylight" fluorescents.  You get
what appears to be more light due to the cooler color temperature
relative to regular bulbs, and only dissipate 25 watts at the "100
watt" equivalent.  http://www.feit.com/twist3.html

I've been going around and replacing a bunch of my lights with those.
The 100 watt versions give light almost immediately, but it takes a
few seconds for them to reach full intensity.  If you walk by my
basement at night, it looks kinda like someone's welding down there
- except it's constant.  After a few minutes, it really appears like
someone just cut the roof of of the house and it's noon in the middle
of summer.  It's semi-disconcerting.

They carry a lot of the bulbs at Menard's and Meijer stores around
here...

--Danny, rather particular about the color of his electric lighting


'[EE] LEDs as lighting'
2006\03\01@142730 by M. Adam Davis
face picon face
Gerhard points out and I'd like to make more clear that each LED
produces a miniscule amount of light compared to a 100W bulb.

The LED consumes 20mA at 2.5V (approx.)  Therefore it consumes 50mW of
power per LED.  The lightbulb consumes 100W of power per bulb.  The
LED is more efficient - let's assume it's as efficient as a compact
flourescent bulb, which is about 4 times more efficient.  Therefore
you need to consume 25W of power with your LED array in order to come
close to a 100W light bulb.

25W at 50mW per LED comes to 500 LEDs.

So take ten of your panels, and you should get close to the brightness
of an average 100W light bulb.

You can do a more rigourous examination by researching the difference
between lumens and candela, and figuring out the physical and
mathematical conversion between the two.  LEDs, being directional, are
rated in candela, while light bulbs are measured in lumens.  Then
you'll be able to determine the number of LEDs you need given the
ratings of the particular LED you are using.  If you are using very
cheap white LEDs then you'll need thousands instead of hundreds.

Of course, it isn't that simple either, since the rating of the LED is
usually at maximum power, and most high power white LEDs only run at
maximum for 1000 hours before decreasing in brightness significantly
or failing.  Heatsinking them properly is non-trivial for running at
max rating.

Then you need to determine how to power and array them, since one
failed LED could dim or blank out a string of them in your array.
Improper powering could lead to one bad LED damaging others, the power
supply, or the whole unit.

etc, etc, etc.

So at this point it's not cost effective on the majority of metrics to
use LEDs in place of flourescents and incandescent bulbs for general
area lighting.  Certain applications shine with LEDs, though.  Car
taillights need to be rugged, and turn on instantly which LEDs excel
at.  Spotlights are directional and LEDs are directional - an example
would be traffic lights.  They are very directional, and since single
colors can be used they are very cheaply made as LED product.  Further
the instant turn on time is again good for this application.
Flshlights are directional, need to be rugged, and have to be low
power, so even expensive high output white LEDs can be a very good
match there.

-Adam

On 2/27/06, Jason <picspamKILLspamcanadaspeaks.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\03\02@040442 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Car taillights need to be rugged, and turn on
>instantly which LEDs excel at.

I am not sure that they need to "turn on instantly". I can see a market
feature arising in the near future for electronics that will "soft turn on"
the LED tail, brake and blinkers, to match the tungsten filament bulbs.

2006\03\02@043445 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>Sent: 02 March 2006 09:05
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting
>
>
>>Car taillights need to be rugged, and turn on
>>instantly which LEDs excel at.
>
>I am not sure that they need to "turn on instantly". I can see
>a market feature arising in the near future for electronics
>that will "soft turn on" the LED tail, brake and blinkers, to
>match the tungsten filament bulbs.

One of the safety features touted for the LED based center brake lights is the instant on time.  Wether the time difference is actualy reduces accidents I don't know, but I certainly think fast turn on is better than slow for a warning signal.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\03\02@050139 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>One of the safety features touted for the LED based
>center brake lights is the instant on time.

Oh, haven't heard that claim actually made. I would have thought the only
real safety feature is they are less likely to burn out.

>Wether the time difference is actualy reduces
>accidents I don't know,

I have serious doubts that it does. After all a filament bulb is essentially
instant on anyway, it must take all of 100 mS to reach full brightness, and
fade again - apart from headlights that is where the fade of the glow is
easily seen in the dark.

>but I certainly think fast turn on is better
>than slow for a warning signal.

Certainly the sooner the warning is given but to my thinking a filament bulb
gives the signal as instantly as an LED.

What I do see currently is that LED lights on cars are perceived as the "in
thing", and are recognisable as such by the "instant on", especially of
brake and blinker lights. However in a couple of years or so I see a
"marketing perception" that the extra electronics to give them a "soft
switch" will become a marketing feature - the wheel going a full circle if
you like. Rather like cassette decks used to have the "soft eject" as a
marketing feature - didn't do anything for the performance, but you paid
more for it.

2006\03\02@054249 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

One argument would be that at 70mph you travel a bit over 3 meters in 100ms, which is about one car length...

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\03\02@055407 by Jinx

face picon face

> >One of the safety features touted for the LED based
> >center brake lights is the instant on time.

One other spin is on Holden's concept car, the Efijy

http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/conceptcar?modelid=20001

It has 32 red-amber bi-colour LEDs to act as both brake and
indicator as well as LED headlamps and interior lights

There's also the emerging use of flashing brake lights

As for using LEDs as lighting, I've found that pointing them
backwards into a parabolic reflector makes a much better
lamp than pointing them forward

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/joecolquitt/bikelamp.html

2006\03\02@060938 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>>I have serious doubts that it does. After all a filament bulb
>>is essentially instant on anyway, it must take all of 100 mS
>>to reach full brightness, and fade again
>
>One argument would be that at 70mph you travel a bit
>over 3 meters in 100ms, which is about one car length...

To which my response would be - how many car lengths would you travel in the
human response time ?? It sort of swamps that ...

I seem to remember as a youngster road safety advertising that recommended a
car length per 10mph as a minimum safe following distance, which seemed to
be reasonable for the cars and conditions of the day. Trouble is people seem
to think that cars have improved to the point where this is no longer
needed, despite the additional distractions of radios, cell phones and so
on.

2006\03\02@061138 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>As for using LEDs as lighting, I've found that
>pointing them backwards into a parabolic reflector
>makes a much better lamp than pointing them forward

Hmm, that is interesting. Will pass that on to my biking colleague who is
into making LED torches and bike lamps.

2006\03\02@075757 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu]
>Sent: 02 March 2006 11:10
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting
>
>
>>>I have serious doubts that it does. After all a filament bulb is
>>>essentially instant on anyway, it must take all of 100 mS to reach
>>>full brightness, and fade again
>>
>>One argument would be that at 70mph you travel a bit
>>over 3 meters in 100ms, which is about one car length...
>
>To which my response would be - how many car lengths would you
>travel in the human response time ?? It sort of swamps that ...

To which I would say the response time distance is immaterial, it can't be changed without e.g. avoidance radar etc.  The last 3 meters could be the difference between a scare and an accident, though probably not a very serious one.  In any case, it's a plausable benefit that you get for free from LED's, switching them on slowly would remove that for no obvious gain.

Regards

Mike


=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\03\02@084831 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Alan wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Thu, Mar 02 at 04:03:
> >Wether the time difference is actualy reduces
> >accidents I don't know,
>
> I have serious doubts that it does. After all a filament bulb is essentially
> instant on anyway, it must take all of 100 mS to reach full brightness, and
> fade again - apart from headlights that is where the fade of the glow is
> easily seen in the dark.

While the actual time difference is negligible, part of it is the
novelty factor for now.  When you see a light that goes from off to
full on instantly, rather than "fading in" like incandescents do, it
tends to grab your attention.  It's for this reason that I always
replace the 1157/2057 bulbs in my tail lights with 3496 krypton bulbs
when I get a new car.  They're as bright or brighter than a 3057 bulb
(which is itself brighter than the 2057 and 1157), but they draw less
power and the come on more quickly - somewhere between an LED and a
standard incandescent.  The price is a little higher, but anything
that makes it more likely for someone behind me to see my brake lights
(brighter and faster turn on) is a good idea, IMHO.

As an aside, any experienced drag racer will tell you that they can
see three stages in an incandescent staging light - the "just turning
on" stage, the "on but not full bright" stage, and the "full on"
stage.  Some have complained about using the LED lights, because it
screws up their launch strategy if they're launching based on anything
but the "just starting to turn on" stage.  I'm pretty sure most tracks
around here are still using the incandescent bulbs.

--Danny

2006\03\02@091801 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 3/2/06, Alan B. Pearce <spamBeGoneA.B.PearcespamBeGonespamrl.ac.uk> wrote:

> >Wether the time difference is actualy reduces
> >accidents I don't know,
>
> I have serious doubts that it does. After all a filament bulb is essentially
> instant on anyway, it must take all of 100 mS to reach full brightness, and
> fade again - apart from headlights that is where the fade of the glow is
> easily seen in the dark.

Having read about studies demonstrating it earlier, I'm fairly
convinced.  The following paper indicates that LEDs turn on as much as
200mS earlier than incandescent bulbs.  A lot of the problem appears
to be the large inrush current of the bulb coupled with the inductance
of a long wire run to the brake switch and power source means that
many bulbs take 200mS to turn on, while some take as long as 300mS.
Few cars turned the bulbs on around 100mS.

http://chemistry.beloit.edu/BlueLight/pages/hp/an1155-3.pdf

Also look at the abundant resources in a Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=study%20LED%20tail%20light%20reaction%20time

Some indicate that the reaction time of the following driver is
improved by at minimum 50mS, and generally 100mS - which is the real
point.  It doesn't matter how fast the lights get to 100%, or 80% -
what matters is how fast the light is percieved by the driver behind.
The following study goes through a range of drivers and a range of
setups (center mounted leds and bulbs, normal right and left side
tallight leds and bulbs, men and women of different ages, etc):
http://www.visteon.com/utils/whitepapers/2002_01_0379.pdf

Arguments against the LED improvement usually revolve around the
closing reaction time - while a car going at 70mph may see the light 1
car length earlier, the fact the the car braking in front is also
going 70mph means that the difference in speed while braking, or the
closing time, is generally under 20mph.  The difference in position,
therefore, over 100 or even 200mS is not a full car length.

So:
1) There is a significant, measurable difference in driver reaction
time on the order of 50-150mS between incandescent and LED bulbs in a
driving simulation.
2) The difference generally never means more than 1 car length
difference in stopping distance, and less than a meter of difference
considering relative vehicle speeds/positions
3) While studies with large trucks show a statistically significant
reduced accident rate, that is largely due to 300mS or longer turn on
times due to long wiring runs.  LEDs are proven accident reducers in
this area.

The best option, I believe, to put this to rest is to study data from
the national traffic accident database:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
and compare two similar cars with similar body style and demographics,
one with LED tail lights and one with incandescents to see what
exactly the difference is in accidents.

As an aside, a good article on flashing brake lights mentions the
difference between LEDs and incandescent bulbs:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11351634/
It indicates that the NHTSA awarded an examption to a german car maker
to allow 5,000 cars with flashing brake lights to be sold in the US to
determine if they result in fewer accidents.

I suspect that while there is a measurable decrease in accidents due
to LEDs, flashing LEDs as described in the article will have a
significantly greater impact.

-Adam

2006\03\02@102820 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>While the actual time difference is negligible,
>part of it is the novelty factor for now.

That is exactly why I can see a future "soft turn off/on" once the LED
instant off/on disappears.

2006\03\02@105519 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
M. wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Thu, Mar 02 at 08:20:
> I suspect that while there is a measurable decrease in accidents due
> to LEDs, flashing LEDs as described in the article will have a
> significantly greater impact.

It's also significant to point out that the LEDs should last the life
of the car easily.  If your brake lights are burned out, they're not
doing anyone any good.  Think to yourself, "how many cars have I seen
on the road with a burned-out brake light or turn signal?".  Now think
about when the last time you checked your tail lights was. :)

I check when I change my oil - but that's still a pretty long period
of time between checks...

--Danny

2006\03\02@112106 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:28:18 -0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >While the actual time difference is negligible,
> >part of it is the novelty factor for now.
>
> That is exactly why I can see a future "soft turn off/on" once the LED
> instant off/on disappears.

Why do you think that's a good idea?  The advantages of instant-on are that (a) it doesn't contribute to a
delay in reaction (b) it's more noticeable.  This isn't a "novelty" thing, it's physiological.  Human eyesight
operates by detecting changes in the view, which is why a flashing light stands out compared to always-on, and
strobes stand out more than soft on/off flashing.

On the subject of reaction times, an alert adult should have a reaction time of around 200ms, so adding 100ms
to that means a 50% increase in distance travelled before an action can be initiated.  Sometimes that will
mean the difference between an adrenaline-shock and a pile-up!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\03\02@121429 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> That is exactly why I can see a future "soft turn off/on" once the LED
>> instant off/on disappears.
>
>Why do you think that's a good idea? ...

I don't necessarily see it as a "good idea" - but it is the sort of thing
that salesmen will want as a marketing gimmick.

2006\03\02@123304 by M Graff

flavicon
face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
>> While the actual time difference is negligible,
>> part of it is the novelty factor for now.
>
> That is exactly why I can see a future "soft turn off/on" once the LED
> instant off/on disappears.

If they do soft turn-on, I hope they do not do it with PWM to directly
drive the LED.

I already see artifacts of flickering break lights some cars have which
makes the break lights appear to be somewhere they are not (like in the
yard next to me, right in front of me when they are in the next lane
over) when I quickly move my eyes.  And when I drive, I tend to quickly
move my eyes a lot.

I get the same thing with the strobe lights on towers.  Sometimes they
just jump to where they should not be.

--Michael


2006\03\02@130434 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Alan wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Thu, Mar 02 at 11:20:
> >> That is exactly why I can see a future "soft turn off/on" once the LED
> >> instant off/on disappears.
> >
> >Why do you think that's a good idea? ...
>
> I don't necessarily see it as a "good idea" - but it is the sort of thing
> that salesmen will want as a marketing gimmick.
>

"Olde Tyme Lites(R), hearkening back to a simpler time - a time when
the car in front of you had already been braking for several hundred
milliseconds before you noticed that their one remaining brake light
was lit. Now! With Simulated Random Incandescent Failure Mode(TM)!
SRIFM(TM) is guranteed to keep those tailgaters on their toes, and
provide endless entertainment on crowded city streets! Buy Olde Tyme
Lites(R) with SRIFM(TM) technology today!"

--Danny

2006\03\02@132301 by Marcel duchamp

picon face
Danny Sauer wrote:
>>
>>I don't necessarily see it as a "good idea" - but it is the sort of thing
>>that salesmen will want as a marketing gimmick.
>>
>
> "Olde Tyme Lites(R), hearkening back to a simpler time - a time when
> the car in front of you had already been braking for several hundred
> milliseconds before you noticed that their one remaining brake light
> was lit. Now! With Simulated Random Incandescent Failure Mode(TM)!
> SRIFM(TM) is guranteed to keep those tailgaters on their toes, and
> provide endless entertainment on crowded city streets! Buy Olde Tyme
> Lites(R) with SRIFM(TM) technology today!

Get in on the ground floor now.  Be prepared to develop and market
incandescent lamps to a future market that has converted to LEDs.

"Recapture that warm feeling formerly only associated with vacuum tube
amplifiers. Don't let them make YOU use those harsh, cold semiconductors!"

2006\03\02@133133 by William Killian

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

in
> the
> human response time ?? It sort of swamps that ...

Wouldn't it really just add to that?  

The faster you get a signal the sooner you can respond to it - even if
the faster signal reception is much smaller in magnitude than the actual
human response time and then braking time.  I know I've had cases where
a mere three meters longer on a stop would be the difference between
contact and no contact with an object.

> I seem to remember as a youngster road safety advertising that
recommended
> a
> car length per 10mph as a minimum safe following distance, which
seemed to
> be reasonable for the cars and conditions of the day. Trouble is
people
> seem
> to think that cars have improved to the point where this is no longer
> needed, despite the additional distractions of radios, cell phones and
so
> on.

This is very true.  Way too many people think they can stop faster than
their cars actually can.



-------------------------------------  Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
postmasterEraseMEspam.....vgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.

2006\03\02@134400 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 3/2/06, William Killian <EraseMEwilliam.killianspamvgt.net> wrote:
> This is very true.  Way too many people think they can stop faster than
> their cars actually can.

And they're right.  Given the same velocity and the same impact target
a human will stop much more suddenly than a car with its greater mass.
;-)

It's not the fall that hurts, so much as the sudden stop at the end...

-Adam

2006\03\02@135003 by Bob Blick

face picon face
> This is very true.  Way too many people think they can stop faster than
> their cars actually can.


That's what airbags, ABS, traction control and automatic braking are for.
Things like that enable almost anyone to drive, and survive.

In places with no public transportation, like the U.S., everyone must be
allowed to drive or else there's no getting around.

So just make the cars as safe as possible, no matter what the cost.

I realize that's an oversimplification, but have you ever tried to get to
work and supermarket without a car? It's almost impossible.

Cheerful regards,

Bob





2006\03\02@140608 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

It does seem to be in the US.  We stayed in New Jersey with some friends a few years back, and they were running low on a few groceries.  When I suggested I was happy to walk to the local store (less than a mile) I was met with looks of horror and offers of cars to borrow.  I only realised why when I found out that the sidewalk stopped about 100 yards from the house and the rest of the journey was meant walking next to busy roads on grass verges....

I guess pedestrian infrastructure is simply not considered outside of housing areas "over there"?

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\03\02@142456 by Jinx

face picon face
> >As for using LEDs as lighting, I've found that
> >pointing them backwards into a parabolic reflector
> >makes a much better lamp than pointing them forward
>
> Hmm, that is interesting. Will pass that on to my biking colleague
> who is into making LED torches and bike lamps.

Couple of things to consider - LEDs have various beam angles
and on a bike it's more about being seen than seeing. Whichever
parameter dominates the design, at least you can run a heck of
a lot of LEDs for the same 500mA you needed for a single bulb

2006\03\02@144632 by David VanHorn

picon face
>   I only realised why when I found out that the sidewalk stopped about 100
> yards from the house and the rest of the journey was meant walking next to
> busy roads on grass verges....


You'd like my town.  They recently went through and put wheelchair ramps on
all the corners.  Of course we still have the telephone poles in the middle
of the sidewalk, and worse, making the sidewalks largely unusable by
wheelchairs (where we have sidewalks at all) but we DO have the federally
required ramps!

2006\03\02@152322 by Timothy Weber

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> In places with no public transportation, like the U.S., everyone must be
> allowed to drive or else there's no getting around.
>
> So just make the cars as safe as possible, no matter what the cost.
>
> I realize that's an oversimplification, but have you ever tried to get to
> work and supermarket without a car? It's almost impossible.

I have crappy eyesight.  Technically, I could get a license here in New
York State, but that's more because of loopholes in the law than because
it would be safe.  I decided early on I'd rather be alive and walking.

So, I live, work, and shop in an unusual small town that has worked hard
to keep its downtown functional and pedestrian-friendly.  It's a great
place to be.

Sorry for drifting further OT - I guess my point is that the car does
not have to be the boss.

(I read an article recently about Americans trying to remember what's
guaranteed in the First Amendment - some said "the right to drive"...)
--
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org

2006\03\02@163658 by Richard Prosser

picon face
The argument related to this is that if you are under full braking,
then the extra 3 metres represents a considerable difference in
collision velocity. A recent TV ad here suggested thart for 2 meters
this was of the order of 20km/hr IIRC.

RP


On 02/03/06, Michael Rigby-Jones <RemoveMEMichael.Rigby-JonesTakeThisOuTspamspambookham.com> wrote:
>
>
> >{Original Message removed}

2006\03\02@174301 by Jason

flavicon
face
From: "M. Adam Davis" <EraseMEstienmanspamspamspamBeGonegmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:27 AM


> 25W at 50mW per LED comes to 500 LEDs.
>
> So take ten of your panels, and you should get close to the brightness
> of an average 100W light bulb.

That makes sense, but there's got to be more to it.  My 1W luxeon flashlight
produces about 10 times the light of that 2.5W panel of 5mm LEDs.

25 flashlights (25 watts) should easily rival a 100W incandescent.

10 of my panels will not even be close.

It could be an economies of scale type thing.  A C7 christmas light bulb
takes 7 wats and a string of 50 of them (even white) gives a tiny fraction
of the light a 100W bulb does.  Maybe LEDs have a similar difference in
efficiency.

Jason


2006\03\02@182306 by Jinx

face picon face

> Hmm, that is interesting. Will pass that on to my biking colleague
> who is into making LED torches and bike lamps

The latest "Rat It Before You Chuck It" article in Silicon Chip
shows how to make a wind-up LED torch from a microwave
platter motor and an old plug-pack

You turn the motor to get HV AC out, which is passed through
the primary of the plug-pack, and comes out as LV DC, stored
in a couple of big caps to keep the LED going after you stop
turning. The LED has a series trimpot to reduce V across it


2006\03\02@193556 by Jason

flavicon
face
From: "Marcel duchamp" <RemoveMEmarcel.duchampKILLspamspamsbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:22 AM

> Get in on the ground floor now.  Be prepared to develop and market
> incandescent lamps to a future market that has converted to LEDs.
>
> "Recapture that warm feeling formerly only associated with vacuum tube
> amplifiers. Don't let them make YOU use those harsh, cold semiconductors!"

You've got this right on the nose.  Nixie tubes....Vacuum tube
amplifiers...Incandescent lamps.

I find the direction this thread took amusing.  The original LED board I
built that started the discussion has a controller that turns it on to full
brightness over 5 minutes so you don't have a sharp light blaring to life,
and should barely notice it as it comes on.  Not quite the same as
simulating an incandescent's slow turn on, but still... :)


2006\03\02@193837 by Jason

flavicon
face
From: "M Graff" <explorer-piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTflame.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 9:32 AM


> I already see artifacts of flickering break lights some cars have which
> makes the break lights appear to be somewhere they are not (like in the
> yard next to me, right in front of me when they are in the next lane
> over) when I quickly move my eyes.  And when I drive, I tend to quickly
> move my eyes a lot.

I see that too.  It seems to be the same effect as the persistence of vision
toy.  For some reason they're strobing the LEDs.  I bought some LED
christmas lights a few months ago that do the same thing (though in that
case I assume the reason is they don't rectify the AC and have half the LEDS
pointing each way so it's a 60Hz strobe.

Jason


2006\03\02@205909 by andrew kelley

picon face
> There's also the emerging use of flashing brake lights

I've seen that before..  It bothered me intially, but it was kinda
neat after that..

andrew

2006\03\02@220457 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jason wrote:

>> 25W at 50mW per LED comes to 500 LEDs.
>>
>> So take ten of your panels, and you should get close to the brightness
>> of an average 100W light bulb.
>
> That makes sense, but there's got to be more to it.  My 1W luxeon flashlight
> produces about 10 times the light of that 2.5W panel of 5mm LEDs.

The flashlight is probably highly directional. Are you sure that it
actually produces "10 times the light"? How did you determine that? At a
spot in the center? Or by the size of the lighted area? Or... ?

Gerhard

2006\03\02@222316 by Jason

flavicon
face
From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <spamBeGonelistsSTOPspamspamEraseMEconnectionbrazil.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:04 PM

> The flashlight is probably highly directional. Are you sure that it
> actually produces "10 times the light"? How did you determine that? At a
> spot in the center? Or by the size of the lighted area? Or... ?

Sorry, I had mentioned that in the original post.

It's shining them both on a wall a couple of yards away side by side.  The
flashlight beam is over a wider area as well as much brighter.


2006\03\03@001000 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 2, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Howard Winter wrote:

>> That is exactly why I can see a future "soft turn off/on"
>> once the LED instant off/on disappears.
>
> Why do you think that's a good idea?

He didn't SAY that he thought it was a good idea.  He said he
thought there was a market.  Occasionally over here we wax
poetic about how we ought to sell "audiophile class" computer
networking products.  Or power cords...
(not seriously, you understand, but it would help keep the
product margins up...)

BillW

2006\03\03@065533 by olin piclist

face picon face
Jason wrote:
> I bought some
> LED christmas lights a few months ago that do the same thing (though in
> that case I assume the reason is they don't rectify the AC and have
> half the LEDS pointing each way so it's a 60Hz strobe.

If that's what they did it would flash at 120Hz, not 60Hz.

******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\03\03@080806 by Jason

flavicon
face
From: "Olin Lathrop" <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGonespamembedinc.com>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:56 AM


>> I bought some
>> LED christmas lights a few months ago that do the same thing (though in
>> that case I assume the reason is they don't rectify the AC and have
>> half the LEDS pointing each way so it's a 60Hz strobe.
>
> If that's what they did it would flash at 120Hz, not 60Hz.

The individual bulbs would be flashing at 60 Hz; as a whole the chain would
be at 120.


2006\03\03@110202 by alan smith

picon face
...audiophile computer products.  Thats already being worked on.....pushing audio/video over ethernet.  One "major" audio company has a team doing it
 
He didn't SAY that he thought it was a good idea. He said he
thought there was a market. Occasionally over here we wax
poetic about how we ought to sell "audiophile class" computer
networking products. Or power cords...
(not seriously, you understand, but it would help keep the
product margins up...)

BillW

2006\03\03@121032 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:02 AM, alan smith wrote:

> ...audiophile computer products.  Thats already being
> worked on.....pushing audio/video over ethernet.

No, no.  I meant the really questionable "*AUDIOPHILE*" stuff
like $700 power cords (that likely connect to $2 outlets)
and similar:

http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/2409

BillW

2006\03\03@122601 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
William wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Fri, Mar 03 at 11:13:
> On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:02 AM, alan smith wrote:
>
> > ...audiophile computer products.  Thats already being
> > worked on.....pushing audio/video over ethernet.
>
> No, no.  I meant the really questionable "*AUDIOPHILE*" stuff
> like $700 power cords (that likely connect to $2 outlets)
> and similar:
>
> http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/2409

And here I am, upgrading my speakers like a sap when I could have
created a "huge sound stage that is focused, detailed, and very
natural" by replacing my power cables.  Man, do I feel like a sucker.

I wonder if I should also have upgraded my $2 outlets with a $147
"audio grade" outlet
http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/124
and a special $8 single gang box
http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/8645
Instead of the silly "consumer-grade" $1 outlet and $0.75 box I used?

--Danny, recognizing that hospital-grade outlets really are better
than cheapies (and that they cost $10, not $150)

2006\03\03@124043 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> No, no.  I meant the really questionable "*AUDIOPHILE*" stuff
> like $700 power cords (that likely connect to $2 outlets)
> and similar:
>
> http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/2409


I saw one a while back, $7000. Comes in a hand-carved rosewood box.
Connects to the same old crappy 12 Ga wire in the wall though.

2006\03\04@124926 by Jim Korman

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:
>>No, no.  I meant the really questionable "*AUDIOPHILE*" stuff
>>like $700 power cords (that likely connect to $2 outlets)
>>and similar:
>>
>>http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/2409
>
>
>
> I saw one a while back, $7000. Comes in a hand-carved rosewood box.
> Connects to the same old crappy 12 Ga wire in the wall though.

The benefits of a strong liberal arts education.......

Jim

2006\03\06@061247 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>... Now! With Simulated Random Incandescent Failure
> Mode(TM)! SRIFM(TM) is guranteed to keep those
> tailgaters on their toes, and provide endless
> entertainment on crowded city streets! Buy Olde
> Tyme Lites(R) with SRIFM(TM) technology today!"

That one cracked me up. You better trademark that name real quick ...

2006\03\06@102218 by alan smith

picon face
Once again...in the wrong business.  I cannot believe that people actually think that using a power cable....NOTHING but...connectors and wire....(cant see a filter in it) will make a difference.  Hell...could have the mortgage paid off by now.....
 
 -----------------------------

David VanHorn <EraseMEdvanhornspamEraseMEmicrobrix.com> wrote:
 >
> No, no. I meant the really questionable "*AUDIOPHILE*" stuff
> like $700 power cords (that likely connect to $2 outlets)
> and similar:
>
> http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/2409


I saw one a while back, $7000. Comes in a hand-carved rosewood box.
Connects to the same old crappy 12 Ga wire in the wall though.

2006\03\06@112423 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 3/3/06, William Chops Westfield <@spam@westfw@spam@spamspam_OUTmac.com> wrote:
> No, no.  I meant the really questionable "*AUDIOPHILE*" stuff
> like $700 power cords (that likely connect to $2 outlets)
> and similar:
>
> http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/2409

The cables are worthless without the $147 triple wipe gold plated
audio grade outlets:

http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/124

Unfortunately they don't seem to come in a cryogenically processed
version.  Maybe next year...

-Adam

2006\03\06@114744 by David VanHorn

picon face
I'm kind of surprised that nobody offers a box to generate CLEAN 60.0000 Hz
AC power for audiophools.   It should definitely be a class-A amplifier
design, operating from two battery banks.

2006\03\06@115312 by David VanHorn

picon face
Would be fun to find an audiophool forum, and start a debate over the
effects of using hydro, oil, coal, or nuclear generated power.  :)

2006\03\06@121045 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I'm kind of surprised that nobody offers a box
>to generate CLEAN 60.0000 Hz AC power for
>audiophools.   It should definitely be a class-A
>amplifier design, operating from two battery banks.

Mine doesn't quite match that battery bank specification, but it does
produce clean output, and as a special feature it does save damage to the
amplifier when the power suddenly fails - it's known as a UPS ;)))

2006\03\06@121735 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
David wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Mon, Mar 06 at 10:49:
> I'm kind of surprised that nobody offers a box to generate CLEAN 60.0000 Hz
> AC power for audiophools.   It should definitely be a class-A amplifier
> design, operating from two battery banks.

Kinda like the unit American Power and Conversion makes, which is real
similar to the things powering lots of computer equipment right now?

http://apcc.com/products/category.cfm?id=15&lid=15

--Danny, actually considering the purchase of one of those because he
dislikes hearing the speakers pop whenever the fridge kicks on /
lights are switched on and off / the microwave popcorn is done / etc

2006\03\06@122107 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
M. wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Mon, Mar 06 at 10:36:
> The cables are worthless without the $147 triple wipe gold plated
> audio grade outlets:
>
> http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/124

Did I not post that link last week? ;)

--Danny, pretty sure there was something in the post about
"hospital-grade outlets" and "$10 for the same thing"

2006\03\06@123253 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTspammit.edu]
>Sent: 06 March 2006 17:21
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting
>
>
>M. wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Mon, Mar 06 at 10:36:
>> The cables are worthless without the $147 triple wipe gold plated
>> audio grade outlets:
>>
>> http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/124
>
>Did I not post that link last week? ;)
>
>--Danny, pretty sure there was something in the post about
>"hospital-grade outlets" and "$10 for the same thing"

Yes, I seem to remember it, though I've seen this a while back when I was investigating just how daft audiophiles could be.

What I want to know is what does "Very smooth burn in" mean in the context of a power socket?  I'd prefer absolutely no burning at all around mains wiring...

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\03\06@125758 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> Mine doesn't quite match that battery bank specification, but it does
> produce clean output, and as a special feature it does save damage to the
> amplifier when the power suddenly fails - it's known as a UPS ;)))


But that's going to just hash up the soundstage, and destroy the transient
openness.

2006\03\06@125943 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> Kinda like the unit American Power and Conversion makes, which is real
> similar to the things powering lots of computer equipment right now?


NO! The power out of those things is way noisy..
I mean 60.00000 Hz with no measurable distortion, or digital noise, no
artificial energies of any kind to interfere with the soundstage.

(trying my best to talk like an audiophool)

2006\03\06@130836 by Peter

picon face


On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, David VanHorn wrote:

> I'm kind of surprised that nobody offers a box to generate CLEAN 60.0000 Hz
> AC power for audiophools.   It should definitely be a class-A amplifier
> design, operating from two battery banks.

Someone makes these. They are used to drive the synchronous motors in
'high end' turntables (which then use a belt to transfer the rotattion
to the granite platter) ...

Peter

2006\03\06@131937 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Michael wrote regarding 'RE: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Mon, Mar 06 at
11:35:
> What I want to know is what does "Very smooth burn in" mean in the
> context of a power socket?  I'd prefer absolutely no burning at all
> around mains wiring...

You know, it takes a while for all of the electrons to get aligned to
your power's specific harmonics.  Since this alignment is very
dependent on the specific equipment being used and, indeed the
material being reproduced, the burn-in process cn not be performed at
the factory.  Experts in the field currently recommend playing a good
representation of your collection at low volumes for at least two
weeks, slowly increasing to typical listening volumes over a period of
one month.  Much like the bake pads on your car, just slapping them in
and immediately pulling the full capacity will result in vastly
reduced life and underwhelming performance.  Properly burning in ones
outlets will greatly increase the width and clarity of the reproduced
soundstage.

--Danny

2006\03\06@133355 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> Someone makes these. They are used to drive the synchronous motors in
> 'high end' turntables (which then use a belt to transfer the rotattion
> to the granite platter) ...


I just can't shake the image of Fred Flintstone now for some reason..

2006\03\06@143004 by Jinx

face picon face

> Would be fun to find an audiophool forum, and start a debate over
> the effects of using hydro, oil, coal, or nuclear generated power.  :)

ah-ha, "markphaser" just outed himself

2006\03\06@145720 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
       In our audio reproduction system at home, I have the power
cord from a defunct vacuum cleaner feeding the left channel and a
power cord that, at one time, had run an electric laun mower feeding
the right channel.  It gives an ambiance to the sonic image.  If you
listen to music that really sucks like those remakes of seventies and
eighties songs that pass for contemporary radio these days, the left
channel has a warm tuby sound because the cord's previous incarnation
was that of running a machine that sucked so there is a sort of cosmic
balance.  On the other hand, the right channel cable used to run a
machine that clipped excess growth so it moderates the effects of
spikes the way it used to take out Dallis Grass.

       We really should have solid silver speaker cables for
listening to classical music.  After all, you've got to have a good
conductor to make a classical orchestra sound good.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
Systems Engineer
OSU Information Technology Department Network Operations Group

2006\03\06@170014 by Bob Blick

face picon face
>        In our audio reproduction system at home, I have the power
> cord from a defunct vacuum cleaner feeding the left channel and a
> power cord that, at one time, had run an electric laun mower feeding
> the right channel.  It gives an ambiance to the sonic image.  If you
> listen to music that really sucks like those remakes of seventies and
> eighties songs that pass for contemporary radio these days, the left
> channel has a warm tuby sound because the cord's previous incarnation
> was that of running a machine that sucked so there is a sort of cosmic
> balance.  On the other hand, the right channel cable used to run a
> machine that clipped excess growth so it moderates the effects of
> spikes the way it used to take out Dallis Grass.
>
>        We really should have solid silver speaker cables for
> listening to classical music.  After all, you've got to have a good
> conductor to make a classical orchestra sound good.


Speaker cables really do make a difference that most people can hear. An
easy test you can try is a comparison between solid and stranded wire. Get
some doorbell wire and compare it to $1 per foot speaker cable.

On the other hand, anything can be taken to extremes, and I would never
spend $500 per meter for speaker cable, even if I could afford it.

Cheerful regards,

Bob


2006\03\06@171046 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Bob wrote regarding 'Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting' on Mon, Mar 06 at 16:02:
> On the other hand, anything can be taken to extremes, and I would never
> spend $500 per meter for speaker cable, even if I could afford it.

Yeah, that metric cable's junk.  Sold by the yard or not sold at all,
that's my motto. :)

--Danny, with a crappy motto

2006\03\06@175529 by Jason

flavicon
face
From: "Bob Blick" <TakeThisOuTbblick.....spamTakeThisOuTsonic.net>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 2:00 PM

> Speaker cables really do make a difference that most people can hear. An
> easy test you can try is a comparison between solid and stranded wire. Get
> some doorbell wire and compare it to $1 per foot speaker cable.
>
> On the other hand, anything can be taken to extremes, and I would never
> spend $500 per meter for speaker cable, even if I could afford it.

True enough, but audiophiles take everything to disgusting extremes.  How
about $300/foot cable (http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/508)?

I doubt many people can hear the difference between $5/foot and $300/foot
cable.

When audiophiles are either suckers who buy that $300/foot speaker cable and
$700 power cables or scammers who sell them, how are we supposed to believe
any claims they make, even ones that can be argued like tube amps are
better.  IMO stuff like these cables make the whole field a joke, and I'll
stick with my $500 Costco stereo.

Jason


2006\03\06@230441 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Mine doesn't quite match that battery bank specification, but it
> does
> produce clean output, and as a special feature it does save damage
> to the
> amplifier when the power suddenly fails - it's known as a UPS ;)))

BUT if it hasn't got Oxygen Free Copper throughout, alluvial 24 carat
gold plating, 7/4 layup triple layer core with proton anti-resonant
shielding and ATX2(tm) then it's about as good to you as UPS. I
personally find USPS much cheaper and about as effective (apart from
the lack of track and trace)(which so far has not been a major
problem)(except in one case, which wasn't USPS's fault)



           RM



                                                                     
                                                 :-)

2006\03\06@235636 by Peter Todd

picon face
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 05:00:12PM +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> > Mine doesn't quite match that battery bank specification, but it
> > does
> > produce clean output, and as a special feature it does save damage
> > to the
> > amplifier when the power suddenly fails - it's known as a UPS ;)))
>
> BUT if it hasn't got Oxygen Free Copper throughout, alluvial 24 carat
> gold plating, 7/4 layup triple layer core with proton anti-resonant
> shielding and ATX2(tm) then it's about as good to you as UPS. I
> personally find USPS much cheaper and about as effective (apart from
> the lack of track and trace)(which so far has not been a major
> problem)(except in one case, which wasn't USPS's fault)

I power my reference setup with a large rotating wheel connected to a
generator with 16 nubile virgins rotating it by hand. Said virgins use
ambergris as their anti-perspirant...

--
TakeThisOuTpeteKILLspamspamspampetertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca

2006\03\07@000405 by Peter Todd

picon face
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 02:00:13PM -0800, Bob Blick wrote:
> >        We really should have solid silver speaker cables for
> > listening to classical music.  After all, you've got to have a good
> > conductor to make a classical orchestra sound good.
>
>
> Speaker cables really do make a difference that most people can hear. An
> easy test you can try is a comparison between solid and stranded wire. Get
> some doorbell wire and compare it to $1 per foot speaker cable.
>
> On the other hand, anything can be taken to extremes, and I would never
> spend $500 per meter for speaker cable, even if I could afford it.

Damn right, though when I'm a rich and foolish audiophile I'm going to
invest in gleeming silver-plated brass busbars for my speaker setup.
They'll be the size of structual i-beams and farking BOLTED to my wall!
(via hand-made ceramic standoffs of course)

If you're gonna make it foolish at least make it look really cool.


Which reminds me... I got that Jameco 50A 5V power supply someone
mentioned... Works beautifully, and sure enough when I opened it up to
take a look the designers used little 1/8 x 1/4busbars soldered to the
component side to handle the current. Very cool.

--
.....petespamRemoveMEpetertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca

2006\03\07@025202 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:59 AM, David VanHorn wrote:

> NO! The power out of those things is way noisy..
> I mean 60.00000 Hz with no measurable distortion, or digital noise, no
> artificial energies of any kind to interfere with the soundstage.
>
To be a true audiophool product, it has to measurably meet
quantitative claims that it actually makes, and me easy to
manufacture by phools.  I don't MUCH doubt that the expensive
power cords are made from custom-spec oxygen free copper litz wire
with gold plated connectors and high-silver content solder and,
dipped for an appropriate period in liquid nitrogen, and all that.
To do less would probably be an actionably criminal act in the US.

Making a 60.000000Hz high-power sine wave with no measurable
distortion is a lot harder.

(I know - you can CASCADE them.  I mean, the hypothetical power
source is just a high power low frequency "audio" amplifier,
so clearly *ITS* output can be improved by being driven with
another such supply.  Each level of cascade in the power supply
adds warmth to your music (and your house, of course, being all
linear class A stuff :-), and a true audiophool shouldn't be
caught dead with less than THREE tiers of such supplies.)

BillW

2006\03\07@052433 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Making a 60.000000Hz high-power sine wave with no measurable
> distortion is a lot harder.

So you think there would be a market for disciplined 59.999r* Hz power
oscillators working from a Caesium standard ?


       RM

* Two phool arguments for the price of one :-)


2006\03\07@073448 by Enrico Schuerrer

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <RemoveMEapptechspamspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclist@spam@spamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting


> > Making a 60.000000Hz high-power sine wave with no measurable
> > distortion is a lot harder.
>
> So you think there would be a market for disciplined 59.999r* Hz power
> oscillators working from a Caesium standard ?
>
You always forget the Europeans with 49.9999 Hz...

Enrico
--
OE1EQW

2006\03\07@091526 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Enrico,

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:36:04 +0100, Enrico Schuerrer wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I think Russell was discussing the American market, since NZ also uses 50Hz (plus or minus whatever! ;-)

I've seen some ridiculously expesive audio stuff here in the UK (£1000 turntables) but nothing remotely
approaching $hundreds for a mains lead... so perhaps the American phool market is the bigger/better target?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\03\07@093744 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> (I know - you can CASCADE them.  I mean, the hypothetical power
> source is just a high power low frequency "audio" amplifier,
> so clearly *ITS* output can be improved by being driven with
> another such supply.  Each level of cascade in the power supply
> adds warmth to your music (and your house, of course, being all
> linear class A stuff :-), and a true audiophool shouldn't be
> caught dead with less than THREE tiers of such supplies.)


Exactly!

2006\03\07@113155 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
> You always forget the Europeans with 49.9999 Hz...
>
No.  They're the ones ESPECIALLY in need of the 60Hz power
supply.  You can expect top quality american-designed gear
to perform at the peak you're looking for if it has to run
on 50Hz power, now can you?

BillW

2006\03\07@130255 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 3/7/06, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfwEraseMEspamspam_OUTmac.com> wrote:
> > You always forget the Europeans with 49.9999 Hz...
> >
> No.  They're the ones ESPECIALLY in need of the 60Hz power
> supply.  You can expect top quality american-designed gear
> to perform at the peak you're looking for if it has to run
> on 50Hz power, now can you?

Well, technically speaking, most audio gear has ugly power supply
design in order to compensate for the lousy 60Hz operating frequency
in the USA.  There's a link between the golden ratio and the choice of
50Hz which has been proven, mathematically and sonically, to be far
superior to the 60Hz system.  What the world really needs is a perfect
clean 50Hz power source, and for equipment that must run at 60Hz you
then follow the 50Hz source with a 60Hz re-generator, which will
drastically help, but not eliminate, most of the problems arising from
60Hz power.

Quite frankly, only then will it make sense to purchase $1,400 power cables.

-Adam

2006\03\07@130847 by Peter

picon face

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, David VanHorn wrote:

>> Someone makes these. They are used to drive the synchronous motors in
>> 'high end' turntables (which then use a belt to transfer the rotattion
>> to the granite platter) ...
>
> I just can't shake the image of Fred Flintstone now for some reason..

After you will install or help move one of those things you are going to
wish you were Fred. 30+kg platter must be put down *slowly* onto its
bearing, or else the bearing will have a dent.

Peter

2006\03\07@135809 by Peter

picon face

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, David VanHorn wrote:

>> (I know - you can CASCADE them.  I mean, the hypothetical power
>> source is just a high power low frequency "audio" amplifier,
>> so clearly *ITS* output can be improved by being driven with
>> another such supply.  Each level of cascade in the power supply
>> adds warmth to your music (and your house, of course, being all
>> linear class A stuff :-), and a true audiophool shouldn't be
>> caught dead with less than THREE tiers of such supplies.)
>
> Exactly!

Come to think of it, there is a point in running two valved class A
amplifiers and a similar receiver/tuner/phono in a room in winter. It
makes for a cozy atmosphere. Of course one could opt for two
top-of-the-line peecees to achieve the same heating value.

Peter

2006\03\07@143752 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> > > Making a 60.000000Hz high-power sine wave with no measurable
> > > distortion is a lot harder.
> >
> > So you think there would be a market for disciplined 59.999r* Hz power
> > oscillators working from a Caesium standard ?
> >

It's been done (for timekeeping though) Active hydrogen Maser feeding a high
end frequency synthesizer to put out 60.00000000 Hz fed to a class A amp and
used as mains power to run clocks - billed as the most accurate nixie tube
clock on the planet. http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-nixie/
Interesting reading, but I think it take a 'special' kind of person to get
that involved with a hobby (well, at least a special kind of wife to let him
:-)

-Denny

2006\03\07@160816 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 3/7/06, Peter <@spam@plpRemoveMEspamEraseMEactcom.co.il> wrote:
> Come to think of it, there is a point in running two valved class A
> amplifiers and a similar receiver/tuner/phono in a room in winter. It
> makes for a cozy atmosphere. Of course one could opt for two
> top-of-the-line peecees to achieve the same heating value.

Maybe that's the "warmth" of tube sound that they're always fawning about.

-Adam

2006\03\09@094102 by Martin Klingensmith

flavicon
face
Human perception and response time can be low, around 20mS would not be
uncommon, though this depends on how far you have to move your foot to
the brake pedal. Most of us don't drive with our leg clenched over the
brake pedal.

Whatever the reason, I react quicker to LED lights. They seem both
brighter and instant on. I think the instant-on part is what really gets
my attention.
--
Martin K


Alan B. Pearce wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Martin Klingensmith
http://wwia.org/
http://nnytech.net/

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...