Searching \ for '[EE] LEDs as lighting' in subject line. ()
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

2006\02\27@203619 by Juan Cubillo

2006\02\27@210316 by Richardson

2006\02\27@212505 by rosoftwarecontrol

2006\02\28@070735 by olin piclist

2006\02\28@080858 by Gerhard Fiedler

2006\02\28@081555 by Sean Schouten

2006\02\28@100700 by mrgizmo

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


{Quote hidden}

>
> 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@124044 by Danny Sauer

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 <picKILLspamcanadaspeaks.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

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

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.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

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

{Quote hidden}

>-----Original Message-----
>From: piclist-bouncesspam_OUTmit.edu [@spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 02 March 2006 10:02
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE] LEDs as lighting
>
>
>>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.

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

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

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

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.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

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

On 3/2/06, Alan B. Pearce <spamBeGoneA.B.PearcespamBeGonerl.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

2006\03\02@105519 by Danny Sauer

2006\03\02@112106 by Howard Winter

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

2006\03\02@123304 by M Graff

2006\03\02@130434 by Danny Sauer

2006\03\02@132301 by Marcel duchamp

2006\03\02@133133 by William Killian

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

> Of Alan B. Pearce
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:10 AM
> 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 ...

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
postmasterEraseME.....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

On 3/2/06, William Killian <EraseMEwilliam.killianvgt.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

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

{Quote hidden}

>-----Original Message-----
>From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesEraseMEEraseMEmit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 02 March 2006 18:50
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [EE] LEDs as lighting
>
>
>> 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.

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

2006\03\02@144632 by David VanHorn

2006\03\02@152322 by Timothy Weber

2006\03\02@163658 by Richard Prosser

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-JonesTakeThisOuTspambookham.com> wrote:
>
>
> >{Original Message removed}

2006\03\02@174301 by Jason

From: "M. Adam Davis" <EraseMEstienmanspamspamBeGonegmail.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

2006\03\02@193556 by Jason

From: "Marcel duchamp" <RemoveMEmarcel.duchampKILLspamsbcglobal.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

From: "M Graff" <explorer-piclistSTOPspamspam_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

2006\03\02@220457 by Gerhard Fiedler

2006\03\02@222316 by Jason

From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <spamBeGonelistsSTOPspamEraseMEconnectionbrazil.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

2006\03\03@065533 by olin piclist

2006\03\03@080806 by Jason

From: "Olin Lathrop" <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGoneembedinc.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

2006\03\03@121032 by William Chops Westfield

2006\03\03@122601 by Danny Sauer

2006\03\03@124043 by David VanHorn

2006\03\04@124926 by Jim Korman

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

2006\03\06@102218 by alan smith

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 <EraseMEdvanhornEraseMEmicrobrix.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

On 3/3/06, William Chops Westfield <@spam@westfw@spam@spam_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

2006\03\06@115312 by David VanHorn

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

2006\03\06@121735 by Danny Sauer

2006\03\06@122107 by Danny Sauer

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

>-----Original Message-----
>From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTmit.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

2006\03\06@125943 by David VanHorn

2006\03\06@130836 by Peter

2006\03\06@131937 by Danny Sauer

2006\03\06@133355 by David VanHorn

2006\03\06@143004 by Jinx

2006\03\06@145720 by Martin McCormick

2006\03\06@170014 by Bob Blick

2006\03\06@171046 by Danny Sauer

2006\03\06@175529 by Jason

From: "Bob Blick" <TakeThisOuTbblick.....TakeThisOuTsonic.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

2006\03\06@235636 by Peter Todd

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...

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

2006\03\07@000405 by Peter Todd

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.

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

2006\03\07@025202 by William Chops Westfield

2006\03\07@052433 by Russell McMahon

2006\03\07@073448 by Enrico Schuerrer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <RemoveMEapptechspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclist@spam@spam_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

Enrico,

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

{Quote hidden}

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell McMahon" <TakeThisOuTapptechspamparadise.net.nz>
> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistEraseMEmit.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...

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

2006\03\07@113155 by William Chops Westfield

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

On 3/7/06, William Chops Westfield <RemoveMEwestfwEraseMEspam_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

2006\03\07@135809 by Peter

2006\03\07@143752 by Denny Esterline

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

On 3/7/06, Peter <@spam@plpRemoveMEEraseMEactcom.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

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