Driver to drive?

Ban · Feb 13, 2010

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnchm9.588.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <hl1sko$t13$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

SNIP previously quoted material

There are these flourescent small tubes 5W for camping use, they are more
bright and need less power than LEDs and cost less.

Easily obtainable LEDs costing not that much more are more efficient
than lower wattage linear fluorescents. As in producing at least as much
light with 2W as a small linear fluorescent does with 4-5 watts.

With even a lambertian radiation pattern LED being more directional
than a fluorescent in front of a mirror, and without optics loss in making
a fluorescent directional, and the LED gaining efficiency as input power
is reduced (if only moderately or moderately severely), I would expect
at least as much ability to iluminate a page of paper with 1.25-1.5 watts
of LED power as I would expect from 4-5 watts of fluorescent power using a
small linear fluorescent lamp.

For example, in stock at Digi-Key for $6.04 USD each plus shipping in
quantities of 1, plus requirement to meet a fairly small minimum order or
pay a somewhat minor handling fee: W42180-U1

Typically 95.5 lumens at .35 amp with typical voltage drop of 3.25
volts. Epoxying it to a heatsink having at least 1.5 square inches
exposed other than fin surfaces facing nearby fin surfaces should keep it
comfortably cool and cool enough to achieve good chance of producing at
least 85 lumens at 350 mA, in any heatsink operating position.

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly 8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The tube I suggested puts out 250lm and apart from that is a line source
which doesn't get shielded that easily as a point source. Makes a difference
when turning the pages, with a LED, where yuo have to press down the paper
to avoid those ugly shades. So basically you would need two of your LEDs to
have a similar illumination.
ciao Ban

Don Klipstein · Feb 13, 2010

In article <hl1sko$t13$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:
<SNIP previously quoted material>

There are these flourescent small tubes 5W for camping use, they are more
bright and need less power than LEDs and cost less.

Easily obtainable LEDs costing not that much more are more efficient
than lower wattage linear fluorescents. As in producing at least as much
light with 2W as a small linear fluorescent does with 4-5 watts.

With even a lambertian radiation pattern LED being more directional
than a fluorescent in front of a mirror, and without optics loss in making
a fluorescent directional, and the LED gaining efficiency as input power
is reduced (if only moderately or moderately severely), I would expect
at least as much ability to iluminate a page of paper with 1.25-1.5 watts
of LED power as I would expect from 4-5 watts of fluorescent power using a
small linear fluorescent lamp.

For example, in stock at Digi-Key for $6.04 USD each plus shipping in
quantities of 1, plus requirement to meet a fairly small minimum order or
pay a somewhat minor handling fee: W42180-U1

Typically 95.5 lumens at .35 amp with typical voltage drop of 3.25
volts. Epoxying it to a heatsink having at least 1.5 square inches
exposed other than fin surfaces facing nearby fin surfaces should keep it
comfortably cool and cool enough to achieve good chance of producing at
least 85 lumens at 350 mA, in any heatsink operating position.

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly 8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Jim Thompson · Feb 13, 2010

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:05:46 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:28:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Learn Laplace short-hand, it'll be invaluable!

...Jim Thompson

I'm gradually getting more comfortable with Laplace, as I
continue to work more problems. It is an especially nifty
way to solve some differential equations, which is what it
was designed to do, I think.

Jon

Jim Thompson · Feb 13, 2010

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:01:14 GMT, mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article <09d9n5t2okq0d950cccpm4o0l5ejn6drlj@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I think a million people should rally in Washington DC and hold up
their hands with SARAH written on their palms.

The Mark of the Beast...

krw · Feb 13, 2010

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:45:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:01:14 GMT, mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article <09d9n5t2okq0d950cccpm4o0l5ejn6drlj@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I think a million people should rally in Washington DC and hold up
their hands with SARAH written on their palms.

The Mark of the Beast...

Whatsa matter, Mark, afraid of aggressive woman? I _prefer_ them on
top myself ;-)

Would you rather get screwed by Obama or Palin? ;-)

The rally IS scheduled for 8/28/2010, on the mall... this time it WILL
really be a million man march!

But only reported in the LSM as the 1000 kook march. Of course, Obama
will be in Europe.

MooseFET · Feb 13, 2010

On Feb 12, 9:17 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

krw wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:41:52 -0800 (PST), "langw...@fonz.dk"
langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:

On 11 Feb., 22:04, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
o...@uakron.edu wrote:

No joke: South Carolina now requires subversives to register
Steve
By Daniel Tencer
Friday, February 5th, 2010 -- 11:49 am
Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now
register with South Carolina's Secretary of State and declare their
intentions -- or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.
As a US citizen you are probably unaware that there are very similar
questions on the US Visa application form (and have been for a very long
time). From memory something along the lines of:

Do you intend to assassinate the President of the USA?
(ignoring the fact that all assassinations so far have been home grown)

Do you intend to overthrow the US government?

You're supposed to claim all income from criminal activity on your
income tax forms, too.

nah it nots that bad, you can see the I94w here:http://www.immihelp.com/visas/i-94w.html

though asking if people are terrorist or were involved with the nazis
during ww2, doesn't seem like
a question they get many yes answers to

It is a standing joke in the ROW that only a US citizen would be dumb
enough to answer these questions truthfully. And it is rumoured that
Oscar Wilde answered "Sole purpose of visit" but they still let him in.

If you consider the possible outcomes. Either the coup is successful or
you get a $25,000 in addition to multiple death sentences and 600 years
in jail to run concurrently.

Regards,
Martin Brown
I'm guessing the idea is that then they will always have something to
put the bad guys in jail for, even if they can't get them for what
they
were really doing

They got Al Capone on income tax evasion.

Lessee...iffen ize gotza liesens tew SUBvert, then iffen i dew that
ize gotza bee leeGAL!

It can also be that the state had no other easy way to bring charges
against those who wanted to "subvert" the nation. It would mean that
you not only broke a federal law but also broke a state law if you
set about subverting without first paying the $5.

Some state had the same sort of thing on "drug dealers" because there
were
some who were selling drugs without ever being in possession. They
used others
to do all of the drug handling. They only acted as a "middle man"
putting the
deal together. It made it easier to go after them.

D from BC · Feb 13, 2010

Is Gotthold talking about what he is?
Is Gotthold answering the question of 'Who am I'?

Is Gotthold picking choice B because it matches human behavior?
If the all truth were dumped on his lap, would that make him less human?

Is this a choice between?:
A: Becoming Mr.-Know-It-All with knowledge that is true (the truth).
OR
B: Be yourself and struggle for your knowledge.

This looks more like only one option not two.
People are already struggling for the truth.

Gotthold might as well be telling God take the offer of all truth(all
knowledge) and to shove it up his ass.
Knowing everything is not human. Don't dehumanize me with all that truth
stuff.

Question.. Who are you?
Answer: Human. A bag of biomatter erroring in the process to attain the
truth of things.
Mr-Know-It-Alls are reserved for aliens and mythical beings.
It's the struggling for knowledge and truth that makes the difference
between humans and Gods.

Something like that?

"The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed
or real, of Truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get the Truth.
It is not possession of the Truth, but rather the pursuit of Truth by
which he extends his powers and in which his ever-growing perfectability
is to be found. Possession makes one passive, indolent, and proud. If
God were to hold all Truth concealed in His right hand, and in his left
only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with a proviso that
I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the
choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
--Gotthold Lessing, 1778

--
D from BC
British Columbia

Jim Thompson · Feb 13, 2010

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:02:35 -0800, D from BC
<myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

Is Gotthold talking about what he is?
Is Gotthold answering the question of 'Who am I'?

Is Gotthold picking choice B because it matches human behavior?
If the all truth were dumped on his lap, would that make him less human?

Is this a choice between?:
A: Becoming Mr.-Know-It-All with knowledge that is true (the truth).
OR
B: Be yourself and struggle for your knowledge.

This looks more like only one option not two.
People are already struggling for the truth.

Gotthold might as well be telling God take the offer of all truth(all
knowledge) and to shove it up his ass.
Knowing everything is not human. Don't dehumanize me with all that truth
stuff.

Question.. Who are you?
Answer: Human. A bag of biomatter erroring in the process to attain the
truth of things.
Mr-Know-It-Alls are reserved for aliens and mythical beings.
It's the struggling for knowledge and truth that makes the difference
between humans and Gods.

Something like that?

"The true value of a man is not determined by his possession, supposed
or real, of Truth, but rather by his sincere exertion to get the Truth.
It is not possession of the Truth, but rather the pursuit of Truth by
which he extends his powers and in which his ever-growing perfectability
is to be found. Possession makes one passive, indolent, and proud. If
God were to hold all Truth concealed in His right hand, and in his left
only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with a proviso that
I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the
choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
--Gotthold Lessing, 1778

Rich Grise on Google grou · Feb 13, 2010

On Feb 11, 10:25 pm, D from BC <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:

In article <hl2o1t$nd...@news.eternal-september.org>, bans...@web.de

You do not understand what he means boy, hint: it is not about the outside
ciao Ban

Not about the outside??
Self esteem is on the inside.

"Self-esteem" is a load of crap: "Duh, I dunno how tuh add too plus
too, but uh feel real
good about muhself! Yup! Yup! Yup! Yup!"

Self-esteem can kiss my wrinkly white ass.

Now, if you were to bother to find some Self-Respect....

Good Luck!
Rich

D from BC · Feb 14, 2010

In article <gf2en5pftij1akfcd0ts1andg01b4ua1d1@4ax.com>, To-Email-Use-
The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...

Go join the Scientologists and leave the rest of us alone.

...Jim Thompson

wow. You're actually reading this stuff

I take existence of Scientology as evidence that people will buy monster
cable speaker wire.
Lobotomizing religions like Christianity and Islam probably also create
wonderful amounts Monster cable customers.
Just believe it!
Pure liquid highs!
Absurdity leads to absurdity leads to absurdity...
Great for the economy.

Religions never provide the tools to figure out how bad the tools are.
What religion teaches skeptical thinking?
There's no such thing as a self-defeating religion.
afaik..Buddhism might touch on that..

Student: Master teach me everything about Zen.
Zen master: I have nothing to teach you.
Student: Then why are all these people here.
Zen master: They just like to hang out.

--
D from BC
British Columbia

Don Klipstein · Feb 14, 2010

In article <hl5j9d$fkm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnchm9.588.don@manx.misty.com...

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly 8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The tube I suggested puts out 250lm and apart from that is a line source
which doesn't get shielded that easily as a point source. Makes a difference
when turning the pages, with a LED, where yuo have to press down the paper
to avoid those ugly shades. So basically you would need two of your LEDs to
have a similar illumination.

The OP was asking for a light to be used from 2 feet away. What
fluorescent are you talking about - the 6 watt F6T5? (6 watts, 295
initial lumens, 230 design lumens)

The F4T5? (4 watts, 135 initial lumens, 95 design lumens, and light
emitting portion of the length about 3-3.5 inches long)
A 3.5 inch line source from 2 feet away will have nearly as much of the
shading you mention as a point source will.

--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Ban · Feb 14, 2010

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnevg2.7tr.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <hl5j9d$fkm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnchm9.588.don@manx.misty.com...

SNIP to here to edit for space

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly 8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The tube I suggested puts out 250lm and apart from that is a line source
which doesn't get shielded that easily as a point source. Makes a
difference
when turning the pages, with a LED, where yuo have to press down the paper
to avoid those ugly shades. So basically you would need two of your LEDs
to
have a similar illumination.

The OP was asking for a light to be used from 2 feet away. What
fluorescent are you talking about - the 6 watt F6T5? (6 watts, 295
initial lumens, 230 design lumens)

The F4T5? (4 watts, 135 initial lumens, 95 design lumens, and light
emitting portion of the length about 3-3.5 inches long)
A 3.5 inch line source from 2 feet away will have nearly as much of the
shading you mention as a point source will.

I had a look Osram L8W/540
Ban

Fred Bartoli · Feb 14, 2010

MooseFET a écrit :

Joe G: You don't have your settings right. When you quote someone's
text, you should see ">" inserted in front of each line. It is the
standard way to mark the quoted text.

[.... My SEPIC idea ....]
On Feb 13, 8:13 pm, "Joe G $Home$" <jo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Why not model it in a spice program (eg like the free LTSpice) to prove your
theory. Then build it.

There is a very good reason why I don't spice it up to prove it and
then
make it. I am very lazy. Although there are very few people in the
world
smarter than me there are also very few who can match me for being
lazy.

Yes but, compared to me you're way substandard... (I mean regarding
laziness

))

Others have already proven the no input ripple SEPIC circuit. The
rest
of it, D from BC can be trusted to see how to do. There is good
evidence
that D from BC isn't nearly as lazy as me so I can let him to all the
work. Being as lazy as I am, if he wants to take credit for the
design
I don't see myself bothering to do anything about it.

I hope this helps

--
Thanks,
Fred.

MooseFET · Feb 14, 2010

Joe G: You don't have your settings right. When you quote someone's
text, you should see ">" inserted in front of each line. It is the
standard way to mark the quoted text.

[.... My SEPIC idea ....]
On Feb 13, 8:13 pm, "Joe G $Home$" <jo...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

Why not model it in a spice program (eg like the free LTSpice) to prove your
theory. Then build it.

There is a very good reason why I don't spice it up to prove it and
then
make it. I am very lazy. Although there are very few people in the
world
smarter than me there are also very few who can match me for being
lazy.

Others have already proven the no input ripple SEPIC circuit. The
rest
of it, D from BC can be trusted to see how to do. There is good
evidence
that D from BC isn't nearly as lazy as me so I can let him to all the
work. Being as lazy as I am, if he wants to take credit for the
design
I don't see myself bothering to do anything about it.

I hope this helps

Ban · Feb 14, 2010

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhngciq.qd1.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <hl8v02$bs$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnevg2.7tr.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <hl5j9d$fkm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnchm9.588.don@manx.misty.com...

SNIP to here to edit for space

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached
to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly
8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less
directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable
by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The tube I suggested puts out 250lm and apart from that is a line source
which doesn't get shielded that easily as a point source. Makes a
difference
when turning the pages, with a LED, where yuo have to press down the
paper
to avoid those ugly shades. So basically you would need two of your LEDs
to
have a similar illumination.

The OP was asking for a light to be used from 2 feet away. What
fluorescent are you talking about - the 6 watt F6T5? (6 watts, 295
initial lumens, 230 design lumens)

The F4T5? (4 watts, 135 initial lumens, 95 design lumens, and light
emitting portion of the length about 3-3.5 inches long)
A 3.5 inch line source from 2 feet away will have nearly as much of the
shading you mention as a point source will.

I had a look Osram L8W/540

I tried web searching for that one, and can't find it. Are you sure
it's not an L 8 W /640? (Apparently equivalent or nearly equivalent to
F8T5/CW)

I can believe 250 lumens from underpowering that lamp at 5 watts.

(I just checked my Philips catalog just now - F8T5/CW at 8 watts
produces 400 lumens initial, 300 design. The L 8 W /640 achieves 385
initial lumens with 8 watts.)

A 250 lumen line source, over a 100% reflective planar reflector,
produces 50.7 candela, good for 136 lux at 2 feet.

A lambertan emitter with no optics at all achieves that illumination
with 159 lumens, maybe 180 considering that style LED often has radiation
pattern a little less directional than lambertian. Two of those Seoul
Semiconductor W42180-U1 will achieve 180 lumens at about 1.1 watts apiece.

The efficiency of inexpensive and easy driver circuits for fluorescents
and for LEDs powered from batteries is another reason why I would go with
LED.

I have it very often in use to illuminate my keyboard, when the room light
is dimmed. It is in a camping light and works from 6 NiCad D-cells. So the
batteries are kept alive by frequent use. I like it because the long tube
doesn't make shadows and I often have to look up something in books. My
distance is around 30 cms only. I also have a flashlight with a 3W LED, but
it is too blueish and the reflection from the paper blinds my eyes.
The /540 is right, maybe an older model, bought it almost 8years ago. cool
white is written on it as well.
ciao Ban

Don Klipstein · Feb 14, 2010

In article <hl8v02$bs$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnevg2.7tr.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <hl5j9d$fkm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnchm9.588.don@manx.misty.com...

SNIP to here to edit for space

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly 8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The tube I suggested puts out 250lm and apart from that is a line source
which doesn't get shielded that easily as a point source. Makes a
difference
when turning the pages, with a LED, where yuo have to press down the paper
to avoid those ugly shades. So basically you would need two of your LEDs
to
have a similar illumination.

The OP was asking for a light to be used from 2 feet away. What
fluorescent are you talking about - the 6 watt F6T5? (6 watts, 295
initial lumens, 230 design lumens)

The F4T5? (4 watts, 135 initial lumens, 95 design lumens, and light
emitting portion of the length about 3-3.5 inches long)
A 3.5 inch line source from 2 feet away will have nearly as much of the
shading you mention as a point source will.

I had a look Osram L8W/540

I tried web searching for that one, and can't find it. Are you sure
it's not an L 8 W /640? (Apparently equivalent or nearly equivalent to
F8T5/CW)

I can believe 250 lumens from underpowering that lamp at 5 watts.

(I just checked my Philips catalog just now - F8T5/CW at 8 watts
produces 400 lumens initial, 300 design. The L 8 W /640 achieves 385
initial lumens with 8 watts.)

A 250 lumen line source, over a 100% reflective planar reflector,
produces 50.7 candela, good for 136 lux at 2 feet.

A lambertan emitter with no optics at all achieves that illumination
with 159 lumens, maybe 180 considering that style LED often has radiation
pattern a little less directional than lambertian. Two of those Seoul
Semiconductor W42180-U1 will achieve 180 lumens at about 1.1 watts apiece.

The efficiency of inexpensive and easy driver circuits for fluorescents
and for LEDs powered from batteries is another reason why I would go with
LED.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Mark Zenier · Feb 14, 2010

In article <tlldn5loej2crsq8uk1rppgj79k0gttnr3@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:01:14 GMT, mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article <09d9n5t2okq0d950cccpm4o0l5ejn6drlj@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I think a million people should rally in Washington DC and hold up
their hands with SARAH written on their palms.

The Mark of the Beast...

Whatsa matter, Mark, afraid of aggressive woman?

How do you feel about supporting a fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian
who, (according to McCain's staffers who were wondering about her degree
of calmness after her selection to run for Vice President), says that it
was "God's plan". (Heard on 60 Minutes when they were pimping that
"tell all" book about the 2008 election, a couple of weeks ago).

She's geographically and culturally isolated. She wouldn't know what
it takes to rebuild American industry, and she doesn't have the backup
Brain Trust needed to chop Wall Street down to size. And she's on the
make to rake in as many bucks as possible. Combined with her kind of
self-righteousness, I predict a level of corruption that would make the
Bush Administration look open and honest.

Right wing Populism is dangerous stuff. At best you get some
miserable unintended consequences, at worst ...

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Robert Baer · Feb 15, 2010

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <hl8v02$bs$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:
"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnevg2.7tr.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <hl5j9d$fkm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Ban wrote:
"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnhnchm9.588.don@manx.misty.com...
SNIP to here to edit for space

The datasheet is at: The W42180 datasheet link in:

http://www.acriche.com/en/product/prd/zpowerLEDp4.asp

U rank is supposed to achieve minimum 91 typically 100 lumens at 350
mA with heatsinkable surface of the "LED emitter" (what gets attached to
a heatsink or a "star board") at 25 C.

At this point, I like to see a bucking switching current regulator
supplying 300 mA, with typical LED power consumption .96 to maybe .98
watt, and power consumption of the LED and regulator circuit combined
maybe 1.2 watt, likely producing a goodly 80 lumens. Four alkaline AA
cells in series should power this successfully for 6-7 hours, possibly 8
hours.

80 lumens, even if radiated in a manner very slightly less directional
than lambertian, is good for 60-67 lux at 2 feet.

I would prefer a few hundred lux - fair chance reasonably obtainable by
experimenting with convex lenses, especially ones with lower f ratio.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
The tube I suggested puts out 250lm and apart from that is a line source
which doesn't get shielded that easily as a point source. Makes a
difference
when turning the pages, with a LED, where yuo have to press down the paper
to avoid those ugly shades. So basically you would need two of your LEDs
to
have a similar illumination.
The OP was asking for a light to be used from 2 feet away. What
fluorescent are you talking about - the 6 watt F6T5? (6 watts, 295
initial lumens, 230 design lumens)

The F4T5? (4 watts, 135 initial lumens, 95 design lumens, and light
emitting portion of the length about 3-3.5 inches long)
A 3.5 inch line source from 2 feet away will have nearly as much of the
shading you mention as a point source will.

I had a look Osram L8W/540

I tried web searching for that one, and can't find it. Are you sure
it's not an L 8 W /640? (Apparently equivalent or nearly equivalent to
F8T5/CW)

I can believe 250 lumens from underpowering that lamp at 5 watts.

(I just checked my Philips catalog just now - F8T5/CW at 8 watts
produces 400 lumens initial, 300 design. The L 8 W /640 achieves 385
initial lumens with 8 watts.)

A 250 lumen line source, over a 100% reflective planar reflector,
produces 50.7 candela, good for 136 lux at 2 feet.

A lambertan emitter with no optics at all achieves that illumination
with 159 lumens, maybe 180 considering that style LED often has radiation
pattern a little less directional than lambertian. Two of those Seoul
Semiconductor W42180-U1 will achieve 180 lumens at about 1.1 watts apiece.

The efficiency of inexpensive and easy driver circuits for fluorescents
and for LEDs powered from batteries is another reason why I would go with
LED.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Ghaa..lumens, candela, lux, candlepower, percent efficiency, and who

knows what else (watts per steradian?)!
Seems every maker uses a different "standard" not only for different
LEDs they make, but also different than other makers.
What are the relationships and the conversions?
My basic questions concerning a given LED would be how bright is it -
can i depend on the number given to tell one is brighter than another at
the same drive (seems the answer is NO).

JosephKK · Feb 15, 2010

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:42:26 -0800 (PST), osr@uakron.edu wrote:

No joke: South Carolina now requires subversives to register

Steve

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, February 5th, 2010 -- 11:49 am

Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now
register with South Carolina's Secretary of State and declare their
intentions -- or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.

The state's "Subversive Activities Registration Act," passed last year
and now officially on the books, states that "every member of a
subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign
control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches,
advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling,
conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United
States ... shall register with the Secretary of State."

There's even a $5 filing fee.

By "subversive organization," the law means "every corporation,
society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly,
body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly
or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty,
necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or
overthrowing the government of the United States [or] of this State."
Story continues below...

A PDF of the registration form can be found here, courtesy of
FitsNews. 1/

The law also gives subversive organizations "subject to foreign
control" 30 days to register with the state after setting up shop in
South Carolina.

While the intention of the law is apparently aimed at Islamic
terrorists, it's unclear in the law's wording whether it can be
applied to right-wing militias, some of whom have reputedly called for
the overthrow of the US government. The law states that "fraternal"
and "patriotic" groups are exempt from the law, but only if they don't
"contemplate the overthrow of the government."

While the law is clearly redundant -- there are plenty of statutes at
the state and federal level through which terrorists can be prosecuted
-- it reflects a not-uncommon pattern in some states of "doubling
down" against particular crimes.

For instance, South Carolina is among those states which require drug
dealers to declare their illegal income, or face additional criminal
penalties on top of the already established penalties for buying,
possessing and selling drugs.

The South Carolina blog FitsNews describes the new law as "bureaucracy
for terrorists."

"In the long and storied history of utterly retarded legislation in
South Carolina, we may have finally found the legal statute that takes
the cake for sheer stupidity, which we think youll agree is saying
something," the unsigned blog posting scathingly commented.

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/south-carolinas-subversive-activities-reg...

1/ http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/SubversiveAgentForm.pdf

I think that the forms need to be filled out by all the members of the
legislature of South Carolina.

JosephKK · Feb 15, 2010

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:11:17 -0800 (PST), Rich Grise on Google groups <richardgrise@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Feb 11, 12:42 pm, o...@uakron.edu wrote:
No joke: South Carolina now requires subversives to register

Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now
register with South Carolina's Secretary of State and declare their
intentions -- or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.

So what? Any terrorist would as easliy sign a loyalty pledge sas blow
himself up.

Why do government addicts think that making a law will magically
change
people's behavior?

Thanks,
Rich

Because it changes their behavior.

Driver to drive?

Ban

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

krw

Guest

MooseFET

Guest

D from BC

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Rich Grise on Google grou

Guest

D from BC

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Ban

Guest

Fred Bartoli

Guest

MooseFET

Guest

Ban

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Mark Zenier

Guest

Robert Baer

Guest

JosephKK

Guest

JosephKK

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor