audio recording on IC -help wanted

[Ross Herbert]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 20:19:26 GMT, "Albert Manfredi"
<albert.e.manfredi@nospam.com> wrote:

pfjw@aol.com> wrote:

Issues with LEDs today:

Color rendering
Diffusion

Once those are solved effectively, they will be excellent
alternatives. My guess is 5 years to color rendering, and 5 more to
diffusion. Most LEDs today filter a single color to a specific
monochromatic output. Even the LED-type flashlights are very
heavily
skewed to the blue end of the spectrum in order to get sufficient
brightness, and require multiple LEDs to get even a minor beam with
very poor diffusion.

But you can use a combination of red, green, and blue high intensity
LEDs, to create any variant of "white" that you prefer. From what Ive
read so far, the efficiency of the new high intensity LEDs is almost
identical now to that of CFLs, which means about the same lumens for
1/4
or 1/5th the power of an equally bright incandescent bulb.

I think we shouldn't get stuck on any supposed problem with CFLs, as
if
they are the only alternative here.

The weird thing about LEDs is that they would last such a long time
that
they wouldn't need replacement. In principle, you can build them
right
into the lamp itself. Or in walls, or whatever.

Bert

See latest development in led lighting here
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm

 

[Albert Manfredi]

"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

You can stick to
the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert
that
there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such
effort
doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

So, I take it, you are not willing or able to speculate why humans tend
to be repulsed by rotten-smelling food, or why they might feel a sense
of threat when hearing a prolonged, deep bass sound? Or why guys tend
not to be attracted to overly heavy or, conversely, undernourished
women? All these things are just chalked up as arbitrary "preferences?"

Bert

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Albert Manfredi" <albert.e.manfredi@nospam.com> wrote in
news:JL52B6.4HJ@news.boeing.com:

"Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

You can stick to
the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert
that
there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such
effort
doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

So, I take it, you are not willing or able to speculate why humans tend
to be repulsed by rotten-smelling food, or why they might feel a sense
of threat when hearing a prolonged, deep bass sound? Or why guys tend
not to be attracted to overly heavy or, conversely, undernourished
women? All these things are just chalked up as arbitrary "preferences?"

Bert

Some preferences are better founded than others. It makes no sense to pick
arbitrary examples as a way to deal with one specific one.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Spammer has apparently removed the means to report the blog as spam.

abuse@blogspot.com appears to be a valid email address to report directly.

 

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Spammer has apparently removed the means to report the blog as spam.

abuse@blogspot.com appears to be a valid email address to report directly.

Yeah, right, and that means spamming newsgroups yourself is now a
suitable means against spamming of newsgroups, eh? You're not fighting
the problem, you're adding to it.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> wrote in
news:f7bid6$ju3$02$2@news.t-online.com:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Spammer has apparently removed the means to report the blog as spam.

abuse@blogspot.com appears to be a valid email address to report
directly.

Yeah, right, and that means spamming newsgroups yourself is now a
suitable means against spamming of newsgroups, eh? You're not
fighting the problem, you're adding to it.

Wheras of course your own hot air is inspirational, no doubt.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <Xns996CE369B8CD8zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130>,
Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending
up with a physical law.


It's a physical law that shorter wavelengths render finer detail. To
read or do fine work or hobby activity we need that. People read when
relaxing, and they might use low colour temperatures while doing it,
but need a lot of that light to get enough shortwave light to
comfortably avoid eyestrain.

The lighting requirements for a hobby area are very different from a
living room.

If they use a higher colour temperature they will find the same comfort
as with lower colour temperatures, and at lesser expense.

I've never noticed a problem reading with tungsten at normal lighting
levels. But if I did I'd provide a high colour temperature point source
for that rather than have all the lighting cold and uninviting.

That's founded in laws of physics, anatomy, and economy. You can stick
to the stated preferences for low colour temperatures to try to assert
that there might be a law that somehow contrdicts all these, but such
effort doesn't seem very likely to succeed.

At the end of the day it's down to preference. And the fact is most prefer
'warm' lighting in the home.

--
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns996F816CDEB0Bzoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130:

The purely functional
basis of the preference for low colour temperatures is itself symbolic

Correction, that should read "preference for HIGH colour temperatures".

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <Xns996F816CDEB0Bzoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130>,
Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:

Preference for higher colour temperatures might be likely based on
efficient shortwave light making things easily visible. Preference for
low colour temperatures is mostly symbolic. The purely functional
basis of the preference for low colour temperatures is itself symbolic,
many people find 'functional' to be almost a synonym for 'bleak' or
'dreary'. Possibly because of an aversion to work (which I can
understand), or more likely because having to ration energy usage
implies discomfort.

More likely by mimicking 'end of day' light it continues to relax us in
preparation for sleep.

--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
news:4f035dd2b1dave@davenoise.co.uk:

More likely by mimicking 'end of day' light it continues to relax us in
preparation for sleep.

Do you mean warm colours? Sunsets are rare in many places. Even in those
areas that have them they are shortlived, and the last light of the day is
high colour temperature. Not even high colour blackbody, but a very blue-
biased colour, to extreme, as the short waves are the last to arrive, by
scattering, as the night falls.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrnf9qf1q.t4p.don@manx.misty.com:

Why do people need shortwave light to avoid eyestrain?

Try it. Take a red LED and a blue LED. Bright enough to read by. Both
outputting the same amount of light, as judged by eye, when their beams are
side by side on a white wall. Read some small print for a while, or walk
around a dark cluttered room using them as torches. The red light won't
reveal the detail with the same clarity. That's an extreme test but it will
make the point. A more realistic test, dim an incandescent till you are a
little above scotopic vision, but can still make out colour clearly, and
read. Try the same again with a light that is strong in shortwave light,
like a Cree LED lighting the wall beside you to get a diffuse light source.
Eyes try to focus to improve visibility. They'll try harder to do that if
they can't get enough shortwave light to make sharp details to focus on, if
you're trying deliberately to use them to see that detail. Which is where
the strain comes from.

That might not happen if you're not trying to look closely at anything, but
many people consider reading a relaxing activity, and it isn't if you don't
have enough shortwave light to render sharp text. If people weren't so
conditioned to low colour temperatures, I think there might be less people
with difficulty in reading as they get older. I don't know what research
has been done on this but it could be interesting to see its results if any
has.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrnf9qfci.t4p.don@manx.misty.com:

In article <Xns996CE369B8CD8zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130>,
Lostgallifreyan wrote in part:
"Albert Manfredi" <albert.e.manfredi@nospam.com> wrote in
news:JL4t9u.6IK@news.boeing.com:

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads
to stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly
ending up with a physical law.

It's a physical law that shorter wavelengths render finer detail.

Can you cite how in human vision, where diffraction limitations are
not
an issue?

Perhaps they are? I don't see how they can be, being a thousandfold smaller
than what we're likely to be seeing, but if I try seeing detail with red
light there's a definite lack of the sharpness of detail that I see if I
use blue light. Whatever the cause of the effect, it's definitely there,
and I have no known abberations of vision so I must assume I am not alone
in this.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <Xns996B90A4AD808zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130>, Lostgallifreyan wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in
news:4f013e8739dave@davenoise.co.uk:

Have you never noticed how many people
are happy with a TV where the grey scale is miles out?


Actually that kind of refutes a point that many including you claim. People
WERE happy for the most part with b/w TV's when that's all they had, and
with colour they liked a sharp clean white and a bright vivid image, and
they were happy, and they'd even fall asleep in front of them with the
other lights out, at times, it's an iconic movie thing, often seen, often
shared. Funny behaviour don't you think, given the high colour temperatures
involved?

People tell themselves they don't like stuff the way kids tell themselves
they don't like their greens, or the way they tell themselves they need
heavy clothes on winter days even when those days are warmer and drier than
many summer ones. They even tell themselves that what they read in the
newspapers must be true.

Back to lights: I refer again to the point that reading and detailed indoor
hobbies need shortwave light to avoid eye strain, and the only reason
people turn up the tungsten is because that's the only way they actually
get enough of the shortwave light they need.

Why do people need shortwave light to avoid eyestrain?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <Xns996CE369B8CD8zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130>, Lostgallifreyan
wrote in part:

"Albert Manfredi" <albert.e.manfredi@nospam.com> wrote in
news:JL4t9u.6IK@news.boeing.com:

Others and I have speculated the "why" people might prefer "warmer"
lighting. There's nothing wrong with speculation. That's what leads to
stating a hypothesis and then trying to prove it, and possibly ending up
with a physical law.

It's a physical law that shorter wavelengths render finer detail.

Can you cite how in human vision, where diffraction limitations are not
an issue?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9970EFECC4488zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130:

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in
news:slrnf9qf1q.t4p.don@manx.misty.com:

Why do people need shortwave light to avoid eyestrain?


Try it. Take a red LED and a blue LED. Bright enough to read by. Both
outputting the same amount of light, as judged by eye, when their
beams are side by side on a white wall. Read some small print for a
while, or walk around a dark cluttered room using them as torches. The
red light won't reveal the detail with the same clarity.

I just tried this and I have to say it didn't work as I thought. The
blue was less bright than the red but that still didn't account for it.

I think it's probably the green part of the usual spectra we see by that
makes the difference. If we use hotter tungsten the ratio of red to green
favours green more than with cooler tungsten, and we're more sensitive to
green, so a smaller hotter source can make useful light more efficiently
than a larger cooler one. If it's biased too much toward blue I guess the
same problem occurs as with light that is too red.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:09:32 +0000, Dave wrote:

I've got an electronic device which operates, at least it used to operate,
using a car battery as a power source. Over time it has begun to complain
about low battery voltage which causes the unit to shut down. The battery
voltage is fine... when I hook it up to the battery in my car and leave the
car running (~14.4VDC while charging) the device will run indefinitely.
So... it would appear that whatever is sensing the input voltage is sensing
the voltage incorrectly.

Leave the car battery in the car, and get a deep-cycle (marine, golf-cart,
etc.) battery for your device, and a proper charger.

Car batteries are for starting car engines, and don't like long-term
"moderate" loads, and discharging them very much shortens their life.

A deep-cycle battery would be seriously overloaded if you tried to
start a car with it, but they can provide a few amps for a surprisingly
long time, and they're not damaged by a deep discharge. (well, within
reason - the point is, they tolerate it better than a motor-starting
battery.)

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Werty]

D.O.A. , M$ will die soon .

Hardware is everywhere , software will

appear soon .

All applications known will be obsolete .
C , Linux are unuseable , bloat , dead

Finally , the X86 to the history books !
Only had 2 index registers !


DS lite game box has simple BIOS , and is

the base for the computer of the future .

In the mean time , everyone is using GP2X

to display their JPG's and using the text VU'er

and hooking CD5415's to the buttons then a low

cost state machine , then a custom KeyPad

with lots of SRAM to store the key sequences .

I dont even have to rename the JPG's i load

into the GP2x , as the State Machine has enuf

SRAM to find any "subject" index .

I keep an "index" on paper , then hit one key

to display all JPG's that match .



BTW , i live in Guadalajara , next to San Juan de Dios
Tube station .
WiFi will destroy all Cell Phones companies .
It reaches 100 Km , it is 10,000 times more B.W.

 

[canyon]

Re: !!!!!!!hallo,i am searching for a repair manual for a sundox 12v-230
power inverter ,anyone can help me?!!!model nr.400014

 

[lewiseason@googlemail.com]

Thanks guys, this has been very helpful (and I now see how complex
this will be (normally)).

Lewis

 

[JeffM]

lewiseason@ googlemail.com wrote:

Thanks guys, this has been very helpful
(and I now see how complex this will be (normally)).
Lewis

How to post to Usenet:

1) Don't start a new thread every time you post.
Don't start a new thread
to comment about another thread you started.
Do comment in the original thread.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=IjoOxBkAAABaTN_kDd6TnHkoIcBWtp3cHTOmbQnqfgSRzFxCoznfCw&scoring=d

2) Have something specific in the body of the post
that indicates WTF you are talking about.

3) Put something on the Subject line
that indicates WTF you are talking about.

http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=46492