Interesting ...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 3 Jan 2015 06:50:55 GMT, Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 17:32:41 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

All this begs the question "Why did the author write the article"? Scott
That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"? My
This also begs the question "Why did I write this long rant when I

http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/begging-the-question-again/?_r=0

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

If your one-line comment is about my use of "begs the question",
you're correct that mine was not the correct usage. It should have
been "raises the question" as described in:
<http://begthequestion.info>
My appologies. I'll instruct my proof reader to check for such
grammatical errors.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Rod Speed]

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

His basic premise makes sense -- more components = lower
reliability -- but the fact is that one can easily find electronic
devices 50 and 60 years old that have never been serviced that
continue to work. Members of this group probably own them.

This is a category error.

No.

Yes, we all have 'n' year old electronic devices, because
we have thrown away the ones that have failed.

And yet cars are in fact MUCH more reliable now even tho
they have a lot more components than they used to have.

Same with other stuff like TVs etc too.

 

[Rod Speed]

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Much more likely he doesn't actually
have a fucking clue about the basics.

Are you any relation to Joshua Speed?

No idea, I've never done the
genealogy that comprehensively.

I do know that I am not related to quite
a few other Speeds in my country even
tho it is a rather uncommon name.

> Arfa is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

He clearly isn't on that particular question.

He didn't even notice that cars are MUCH
more reliable than they used to be even
tho they have vastly more components
than they used to have. In spades with
computer cpus and memory alone.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 07:10:25 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:htfeaa9rp9rc028ei8e7phd31i20rq4b2o@4ax.com...

The reason for the designed in failures is the need for manufactories
to continue selling replacements. If they actually made a device that
lasts forever, they will sell a few years worth, and then go out of
business because there will be no replacement sales. Reliability is
bad for (consumer) business.

What about lighting for new buildings?

It's strictly a question of selling price.

Joe Sixpack is not going to tolerate $8 "60 watt" lamps in his house.
He wants cheap, at any cost, even if it blows up every few years. I've
noticed that most of the homes that I see that have all LED lighting,
also have a hybrid car, grid tied solar systems, and other energy
conservation devices. They tend to be affluent but not very good at
calculating the alleged savings or comparing with alternatives. When
I do this for them, some don't want to hear the bad news. They'll pay
any price, to save a few pennies. Seriously expensive LED lighting is
not a problem for this market.

However, the rest are tightwads or just plain cheap. They look at the
store shelf and see $1 CCFL lamps next to $10 LED lights. My guess is
they'll buy the $1 lamp and wait for the price of LED's to drop. I
saw this happen at the local hardware store. The flooring manager
said that when he puts the two types of lights next to each other, the
sales of CCFL lamps go up and LED's drop. When he separates them,
putting the LED's in a garish impulse buy display near the cash
register, CCFL sales drop, and LED's go up. The bottom line is that
Joe Sixpack wants cheap lights, and the only way the industry is going
to supply those is to cut corners, which show up as increased infant
mortality and lifetime failures.

However, high reliability lighting (towers, airports, buildings, etc)
are in a different class from Joe Sixpack. You don't find those
lights at the hardware store or supermarket. They're industrial
specialty items, with high quality LED's, and high prices to match.
Reputation is a big thing in such markets, so anything designed to
fail prematurely is not going to last very long.

>From my perspective, the cost savings outweigh the "premature" failures.

That totally depends on how you rate lifetime. I get about 2 years on
most of my commodity CCFL lights. I haven't blown out enough lights
to produce useful statistics, but mostly I break them from impact
damage, or something in the electronics burns out, usually with a puff
of smog and a noxious smell. A capacitor would be my guess from the
smell.

However, these are not the best CCFL lights. Why would this company
advertise that their CCFL lamps have 2.5 to 6.6 times the lifetime of
ordinary CCFL lamps?
<http://www.ccfllamps.com/_en/02_technology/01_detail.php?fid=3>
Is it because their lamps are better, or because the ordinary CCFL
lamps have been cost reduced to produce a shorter lifetime? Dunno,
but I suspect the latter.

LED's are probably similar. You can get those that last forever, and
those that are cost reduced to blow up just after the warranty
expires. If you do the math, my guess is the price/performance ratio
is about the same.

That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"?
My best guess(tm) here is that he's still having problems adjusting
to LED lighting and needs a new reason to not use LED lighting.

Like most people, Arfa doesn't like high-K lighting. I switched to 5000K CFLs,
and though it took a couple of weeks to adjust, I much prefer light that
more-closely resembles daylight, and is subjectively brighter.

It's been a while, but I recall that he could not adjust to LED
lighting. He's not the only one. The neighboring architects office
has two people that claim eyestrain from the replacement LED lighting.
Their section of the office uses ordinary fluorescent tubes and
incandescent desk lamps. (I once suggested kerosene lamps with
predictable results).

I've done some testing on myself to see what works best. 6000K
daylight LED lighting seems best for doing fine detail work.
2700-3000K is much easier on my eyes for reading, but I have trouble
focusing on detail and fine print. I use both where appropriate.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Robertson]

On 01/03/2015 7:10 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:htfeaa9rp9rc028ei8e7phd31i20rq4b2o@4ax.com...

The reason for the designed in failures is the need for manufactories
to continue selling replacements. If they actually made a device that
lasts forever, they will sell a few years worth, and then go out of
business because there will be no replacement sales. Reliability is
bad for (consumer) business.

What about lighting for new buildings?

My son-in-law is working on that problem. They manufacture light pipes
that bring outside light sources - the sun, high intensity electric,
etc. - and transport that throughout buildings (up to 50 feet) using
light pipes that drop it down everywhere needed. They are having great
fun with this!

<http://www.suncentralinc.com/>

From my perspective, the cost savings outweigh the "premature" failures.


That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"?
My best guess(tm) here is that he's still having problems adjusting
to LED lighting and needs a new reason to not use LED lighting.

Like most people, Arfa doesn't like high-K lighting. I switched to 5000K
CFLs, and though it took a couple of weeks to adjust, I much prefer
light that more-closely resembles daylight, and is subjectively brighter.

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[John Robertson]

On 01/03/2015 10:23 AM, Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:19:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

Please spell carats correctly and cease the apostrophe abuse so that we
don't have to wrap your lines...

OK, guys, when we turn into language police then examples of Godwin's
Law aren't far behind...

(ducking)

John ;-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[John Robertson]

On 01/03/2015 7:00 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message news:cgq2lkFhs9bU5@mid.individual.net...
On 2015-01-02, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

His basic premise makes sense -- more components = lower reliability
-- but the fact is that one can easily find electronic devices 50 and 60
years old that have never been serviced that continue to work. Members
of this group probably own them.

This is a category error. Yes, we all have 'n' year-old electronic
devices,
because we have thrown away the ones that have failed.

That's logically correct. But I have 40 to 50 year old Sony and KLH
products that work fine. Whereas Sony stuff from the last 15 years is
gradually falling apart.

And I have a lovely Phillips reel-to-reel tape player (1960s) that has
had all the internal drive belts and idler tires turn to goo...a real
pain to get running again! If I ever get around to it. The electronics
all appear just fine.

Not to mention one of my first jobs in the 60s was scrapping rotted foam
sound insulation from the inside cases of IBM punch card printers, etc.
- around 1967 as I recall.

So, what can fail often has little to do with electronics, there is all
that support stuff that goes bad after its BBD (Best Before Date).

John :-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 19:51:18 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I see a lot of LED traffic lights with groups of dead LEDs.

I haven't. Locally, we have some LED traffic and street lights. I
have yet to see one malfunction. However, it might be simply because
the traffic department is good about quickly replacing any failures.
Most LED lights include a remote monitoring feature.

I'm not sure what might be causing the failures that you've observed.
Any sign of overheating? Power glitches? Bullet holes?

Los Angeles Saves Millions With LED Street Light Deployment
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2013/01/25/los-angeles-saves-millions-with-led-street-light-deployment/>
After 36 months of initial operation, for instance, high-intensity
discharge (HID) fixtures in Los Angeles recorded an average failure
rate of 10%; the average failure rate for LED fixtures, according
to the latest figures, is 0.2% (189 of 98,000 installed).

The one
closest to me is on the fourth red LED lamp in the last couple years and
already has some groups that are quite dim.

Got an IR temperature gun? Get as close as you can and get a
temperature reading. My guess(tm) is that it's running hot, even with
some blown lights.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 1/3/2015 1:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 07:10:25 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:htfeaa9rp9rc028ei8e7phd31i20rq4b2o@4ax.com...

The reason for the designed in failures is the need for manufactories
to continue selling replacements. If they actually made a device that
lasts forever, they will sell a few years worth, and then go out of
business because there will be no replacement sales. Reliability is
bad for (consumer) business.

What about lighting for new buildings?

It's strictly a question of selling price.

Joe Sixpack is not going to tolerate $8 "60 watt" lamps in his house.
He wants cheap, at any cost, even if it blows up every few years. I've
noticed that most of the homes that I see that have all LED lighting,
also have a hybrid car, grid tied solar systems, and other energy
conservation devices. They tend to be affluent but not very good at
calculating the alleged savings or comparing with alternatives. When
I do this for them, some don't want to hear the bad news. They'll pay
any price, to save a few pennies. Seriously expensive LED lighting is
not a problem for this market.

However, the rest are tightwads or just plain cheap. They look at the
store shelf and see $1 CCFL lamps next to $10 LED lights. My guess is
they'll buy the $1 lamp and wait for the price of LED's to drop. I
saw this happen at the local hardware store. The flooring manager
said that when he puts the two types of lights next to each other, the
sales of CCFL lamps go up and LED's drop. When he separates them,
putting the LED's in a garish impulse buy display near the cash
register, CCFL sales drop, and LED's go up. The bottom line is that
Joe Sixpack wants cheap lights, and the only way the industry is going
to supply those is to cut corners, which show up as increased infant
mortality and lifetime failures.

However, high reliability lighting (towers, airports, buildings, etc)
are in a different class from Joe Sixpack. You don't find those
lights at the hardware store or supermarket. They're industrial
specialty items, with high quality LED's, and high prices to match.
Reputation is a big thing in such markets, so anything designed to
fail prematurely is not going to last very long.

From my perspective, the cost savings outweigh the "premature" failures.

That totally depends on how you rate lifetime. I get about 2 years on
most of my commodity CCFL lights. I haven't blown out enough lights
to produce useful statistics, but mostly I break them from impact
damage, or something in the electronics burns out, usually with a puff
of smog and a noxious smell. A capacitor would be my guess from the
smell.

However, these are not the best CCFL lights. Why would this company
advertise that their CCFL lamps have 2.5 to 6.6 times the lifetime of
ordinary CCFL lamps?
http://www.ccfllamps.com/_en/02_technology/01_detail.php?fid=3
Is it because their lamps are better, or because the ordinary CCFL
lamps have been cost reduced to produce a shorter lifetime? Dunno,
but I suspect the latter.

LED's are probably similar. You can get those that last forever, and
those that are cost reduced to blow up just after the warranty
expires. If you do the math, my guess is the price/performance ratio
is about the same.

That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"?
My best guess(tm) here is that he's still having problems adjusting
to LED lighting and needs a new reason to not use LED lighting.

Like most people, Arfa doesn't like high-K lighting. I switched to 5000K CFLs,
and though it took a couple of weeks to adjust, I much prefer light that
more-closely resembles daylight, and is subjectively brighter.

It's been a while, but I recall that he could not adjust to LED
lighting. He's not the only one. The neighboring architects office
has two people that claim eyestrain from the replacement LED lighting.
Their section of the office uses ordinary fluorescent tubes and
incandescent desk lamps. (I once suggested kerosene lamps with
predictable results).

I've done some testing on myself to see what works best. 6000K
daylight LED lighting seems best for doing fine detail work.
2700-3000K is much easier on my eyes for reading, but I have trouble
focusing on detail and fine print. I use both where appropriate.

I have a bunch of Luxo desk lamps that have a 100 W incandescent
surrounded by a 22W circular fluorescent. They're by far the easiest
thing on the eyes that I've ever used.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Rod Speed]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote

William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote
Jeff Liebermann wrote

Nothing profound has ever been said on one line.

Including that statement?

Of course. Everything I write has a hidden meaning,
hidden agenda, hidden target, or hidden oxymoron.

The problem here is that while I respect the rights of every person to
have an opinion in accordance with freedom of speech, I don't really
care what that opinion might be. I'm interested in the reasoning
behind that opinion, the logic used to arrive at the opinion, and
possibly some examples of why that opinion is correct and others
wrong. I'll then weight all the sides of the discussion, relative to
my needs, and make my own decision. Circumventing this logic
process by merely offering an opinion is a waste of time and bytes.

Also, the proliferation of one-line comments on the web and Usenet
make me suspect that the literacy of those involved is deficient.

That line can't explain why some like Churchill specialised in
stinging one liners. Hard to claim his literacy was deficient.

I can speculate endlessly as to the reasons for this deterioration in
literacy. One of the more interesting causes is coupled with another
problem. Posters with questions often supply as little information
as possible and require interrogation in order to extract the facts.

That has always been a problem. Plenty just don't understand that
'it doesn't work anymore' isnt every useful for working out why it doesn't.

One-liners and lack of info are symptoms
of the same problem, fear of screwing up.

I don't buy that with one liners with people like Churchill.

The more one writes, the easier it is for someone
else to find an error, omission, or logic fault.

Yes.

Rather than be caught making a mistake,
it is much easier to not present a targets.

I don't believe that is the reason for one
liners or the lack of detail with a fault either.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
to speak out and remove all doubt"? (Abraham Lincoln).

Another one liner.

It's also possible that the perpetrators of one-liners are stuck in
a write only mode, where they care little about those that might
read the comments. That would class them only slightly better
than a spammer that doesn't read the newsgroup before or after
posting their junk. If this is the problem, I suggest that people
posting anything first consider a simple litmus test. If you don't
like reading what you're about to post, then don't post it.

Some of us prefer Ab's one liner to your para just above.

 

[Tim Streater]

In article <smagaapbev4em643p3knr1pa2h9rb7htnh@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

problem. Posters with questions often supply as little information as
possible and require interrogation in order to extract the facts.
One-liners and lack of info are symptoms of the same problem, fear of
screwing up. The more one writes, the easier it is for someone else
to find an error, omission, or logic fault. Rather than be caught
making a mistake, it is much easier to not present a targets.

Or, of course, being inconsistent within a post. It's late, one is
tired, and so on. Much easier to make a short post than make a longer
one be coherent.

--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

 

[Rod Speed]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:bncgaaducg27p8egusu1fqmjk94feamr09@4ax.com...

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 07:10:25 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:htfeaa9rp9rc028ei8e7phd31i20rq4b2o@4ax.com...

The reason for the designed in failures is the need for manufactories
to continue selling replacements. If they actually made a device that
lasts forever, they will sell a few years worth, and then go out of
business because there will be no replacement sales. Reliability is
bad for (consumer) business.

What about lighting for new buildings?

It's strictly a question of selling price.

Joe Sixpack is not going to tolerate $8 "60 watt" lamps in his house.
He wants cheap, at any cost, even if it blows up every few years. I've
noticed that most of the homes that I see that have all LED lighting,
also have a hybrid car, grid tied solar systems, and other energy
conservation devices. They tend to be affluent but not very good at
calculating the alleged savings or comparing with alternatives. When
I do this for them, some don't want to hear the bad news. They'll pay
any price, to save a few pennies. Seriously expensive LED lighting is
not a problem for this market.

However, the rest are tightwads or just plain cheap. They look at the
store shelf and see $1 CCFL lamps next to $10 LED lights. My guess is
they'll buy the $1 lamp and wait for the price of LED's to drop. I
saw this happen at the local hardware store. The flooring manager
said that when he puts the two types of lights next to each other, the
sales of CCFL lamps go up and LED's drop. When he separates them,
putting the LED's in a garish impulse buy display near the cash
register, CCFL sales drop, and LED's go up. The bottom line is that
Joe Sixpack wants cheap lights,

Yes.

and the only way the industry is going
to supply those is to cut corners,

No, most obviously with the change from
incandescent torches to LED torches.

> which show up as increased infant mortality and lifetime failures.

No, most obviously with the change from
incandescent torches to LED torches.

And with cars in spades. MUCH more reliable than they used to be.

However, high reliability lighting (towers, airports, buildings,
etc) are in a different class from Joe Sixpack. You don't find those
lights at the hardware store or supermarket. They're industrial
specialty items, with high quality LED's, and high prices to match.
Reputation is a big thing in such markets, so anything designed
to fail prematurely is not going to last very long.

Same with systems like Amazon and ebay where
its so easy to see how long things have lasted.

And you get the short life problem even with the brand name
high end items too. Have a look at logitech mice for example.
The microswitches fail with monotonous regularity, multiple
clicking when you only intended a single click. That's been
going on for more than a decade now even with their most
expensive mice selling for $100 each with 5 or 7 year warrantys
where its in the manufacturer's interest to fix the problem
because they have to wear the replacement under warranty.

Your claim that logitech deliberately designs them
to fail like that just can't fly with warrantys like that.

From my perspective, the cost savings outweigh the "premature" failures.

That totally depends on how you rate lifetime. I get
about 2 years on most of my commodity CCFL lights.

I'm currently seeing more than 10 out of
mine and that one is used every single day.

I haven't blown out enough lights to produce useful
statistics, but mostly I break them from impact damage,

Those don't count.

or something in the electronics burns out, usually
with a puff of smog and a noxious smell. A
capacitor would be my guess from the smell.

However, these are not the best CCFL lights. Why would
this company advertise that their CCFL lamps have 2.5 to
6.6 times the lifetime of ordinary CCFL lamps?
http://www.ccfllamps.com/_en/02_technology/01_detail.php?fid=3
Is it because their lamps are better, or because the ordinary CCFL
lamps have been cost reduced to produce a shorter lifetime?

Or they have put more effort into a decent design.

Dunno, but I suspect the latter.

LED's are probably similar. You can get those that last forever,

And virtually all of the lowest power indicator leds do just that.

and those that are cost reduced to blow
up just after the warranty expires.

I don't believe that that last is even possible.

The reality with the cheapest shit from china is that
you're lucky if all of them work out of the box.

If you do the math, my guess is the
price/performance ratio is about the same.

Fraid not with my CFLs.

That also begs the question "Why did Arfa Daily post the article"?
My best guess(tm) here is that he's still having problems adjusting
to LED lighting and needs a new reason to not use LED lighting.

Like most people, Arfa doesn't like high-K lighting. I switched to 5000K
CFLs, and though it took a couple of weeks to adjust, I much prefer light
that more-closely resembles daylight, and is subjectively brighter.

It's been a while, but I recall that he could not adjust to LED
lighting. He's not the only one. The neighboring architects
office has two people that claim eyestrain from the replacement
LED lighting. Their section of the office uses ordinary fluorescent
tubes and incandescent desk lamps. (I once suggested kerosene
lamps with predictable results).

I've done some testing on myself to see what works best.
6000K daylight LED lighting seems best for doing fine detail work.
2700-3000K is much easier on my eyes for reading, but I have trouble
focusing on detail and fine print. I use both where appropriate.

 

[Tim Watts]

On 03/01/15 10:13, Tim Watts wrote:

On the subject - what *is* the best way to drive LEDs?

Seems to me that whilst convenient and in line with my earlier comments
on standardisation, putting little 230V PSUs in every lamp that get hot
and blow up is not the best way forward.

Does a 12V supply offer any advantages in terms of minimising on board
electronics? 12V SELV is at least standard.

If an LED has a Vf (forward voltage drop) of x volts, is it considered
good form to put 12/x LEDs in series across the supply with no other
limiting circuitry?

Or is there a really simple 2 pin current regulator on a chip available?

Old style 0.2" 20mA LEDs weren't that bothered, but I'm not au fait with
high power Crees and the like.

Anyone?

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:19:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

I don't think you mean 'carrets' (sic) [that would be 'carets']

But I'm not sure what the right term is - I call them 'diamond brackets'.

Sorry about omitting them - as I often do, I remembered it after I
pressed the button!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me ÂŁ30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

 

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:23:51 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:19:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

Please spell carats correctly and cease the apostrophe abuse so that we
don't have to wrap your lines...

ITYM 'carets'!



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me ÂŁ30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

 

[john james]

"Tim Watts" <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:gg2mnb-nmt.ln1@squidward.dionic.net...

On 03/01/15 10:13, Tim Watts wrote:
On the subject - what *is* the best way to drive LEDs?

Seems to me that whilst convenient and in line with my earlier comments
on standardisation, putting little 230V PSUs in every lamp that get hot
and blow up is not the best way forward.

Does a 12V supply offer any advantages in terms of minimising on board
electronics? 12V SELV is at least standard.

If an LED has a Vf (forward voltage drop) of x volts, is it considered
good form to put 12/x LEDs in series across the supply with no other
limiting circuitry?

Or is there a really simple 2 pin current regulator on a chip available?

Old style 0.2" 20mA LEDs weren't that bothered, but I'm not au fait with
high power Crees and the like.

Anyone?

www.google.com/search?q=cree+teardown

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 03/01/15 18:23, Adrian wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:19:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

Please spell carats correctly and cease the apostrophe abuse so that we
don't have to wrap your lines...

Please spell *carets* correctly ....

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll

 

[polygonum]

On 03/01/2015 21:49, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:19:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please put carrets around URL's so that the Usenet server doesn't
reformat it by wrapping the lines.

I don't think you mean 'carrets' (sic) [that would be 'carets']

But I'm not sure what the right term is - I call them 'diamond brackets'.

Sorry about omitting them - as I often do, I remembered it after I
pressed the button!

They ain't carrats, carrets, carrots, carats nor even carets!

^
ASCII caret
(circumflex accent)

They are:

> <

Angle brackets or Less-than sign and Greater-than sign

--
Rod

 

[Tim Watts]

On 03/01/15 22:09, john james wrote:

www.google.com/search?q=cree+teardown

Thank you - that was very informative.

Wonder if those are available here

<goes off to check>

 

[Phil Allison]

mike wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

However, these are not the best CCFL lights. Why would
this company advertise that their CCFL lamps have 2.5 to
6.6 times the lifetime of ordinary CCFL lamps?
http://www.ccfllamps.com/_en/02_technology/01_detail.php?fid=3
Is it because their lamps are better, or because the ordinary CCFL
lamps have been cost reduced to produce a shorter lifetime?

** Rod did not write the above.

It's called business.

*** FFS can't you see either that "CCFL" and "CFL" are NOT the same ?


> Go to any grocery store.

** Go to Google first.

Geez ....



..... Phil