Interesting ...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:02:10 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

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.

Are you sure?
"I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to
make it short" (Blaise Pascal)

I know how to make things worse. I often post to Usenet when I'm
working in my palatial office. A single long reply might be assembled
in perhaps 5 sections, spread over several hours. I frequently have a
better idea as I go along, and forget to edit the previous great idea
into something that is consistent with the latest great idea. When I
later review the posting, my reaction is usually "Did I write that"?
Sometime long and coherent are mutually exclusive.

I tend to write that way I expect others to write. As I previously
mentioned, I really don't care for one-line opinions and
pontifications. I want to read logic, reasoning, references,
examples, links to related articles, and personal experiences. That's
rather difficult to deliver in a short posting and impossible in a
one-liner.

Also, I'm quite serious about the fear of screwing up. It really bugs
me. With all the rants and conspiracy theories that I write, mistakes
are inevitable. When possible, I admit and correct my mistakes. More
often, I just turn off the computer, and go sulk for a few days.
Sometimes, there's nothing I can write that would be worth reading, so
I just disappear. Eventually, I recover and return until repeated
after my next inevitable mistake. I could greatly improve my batting
average by simply replying with a one-liner, where my ability to screw
things up is severely restricted.

--
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

 

[mike]

On 1/3/2015 12:04 PM, 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?

It's called business.
Go to any grocery store.
Do you really believe this toothpaste gets your teeth twice as clean
as that one?
Or that your clothes will stay fresh 2X longer with this detergent?
Any claim that can't be disproved in court is a good claim.

In their zeal to get to market, it's not unusual to find that the cure
for one reliability problem introduced another. oops!

How long do you save the receipts and packaging?
Lifetime warranty is useless if you can't figger out where
to place the claim or it costs more to ship than to buy new.

With anything new, you want to reel in all the early adopters
who'll pay high prices. Product has to last until the prices
come down below shipping costs or you've changed the name on the
company nameplate.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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?

This is Central Florida, so it is hot, and the electricity is crap,
since it went from Florida Power, to Progress Energy, then to Duke
Energy. They are specified and maintained by FDOT, or one of their
contractors. I've seen a few spots where they went back to the
incandescent lamp and colored lens.

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.

No, all I have is the small fob type of contactless IR thermometer.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Rod Speed]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote

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.

Are you sure?

Yep.

"I have made this letter longer than usual, because
I lack the time to make it short" (Blaise Pascal)

Another one liner from someone who is quite literate.

I know how to make things worse. I often post to Usenet when I'm
working in my palatial office. A single long reply might be assembled
in perhaps 5 sections, spread over several hours. I frequently have a
better idea as I go along, and forget to edit the previous great idea
into something that is consistent with the latest great idea. When
I later review the posting, my reaction is usually "Did I write that"?
Sometime long and coherent are mutually exclusive.

Sure, but clearly we do see the other effect he mentioned too.

I tend to write that way I expect others to write. As I previously
mentioned, I really don't care for one-line opinions

They can be useful at times, particularly when you are
saying you agree with someone else's longer post.

> and pontifications.

Even pontifications have their place, particularly if you are the Pope.

I want to read logic, reasoning, references, examples,
links to related articles, and personal experiences.

Sure, but that isnt always feasible, particularly
with links to related articles in some situations.

Sometimes its useful to just post a list of possibilitys
with a problem and suggest how to test if that one
is what is happening etc.

That's rather difficult to deliver in a short
posting and impossible in a one-liner.

Yes, but one liners do have their place.
Have a look at some of Churchill's sometime.

Also, I'm quite serious about the fear
of screwing up. It really bugs me.

Sure, but it isnt something that drives everyone in the fear sense.

With all the rants and conspiracy theories
that I write, mistakes are inevitable.

Yes, and you have done that with one liners.

> When possible, I admit and correct my mistakes.

You haven't done that with this one.

More often, I just turn off the computer, and go sulk for a few days.
Sometimes, there's nothing I can write that would be worth reading,
so I just disappear. Eventually, I recover and return until repeated
after my next inevitable mistake. I could greatly improve my
batting average by simply replying with a one-liner, where
my ability to screw things up is severely restricted.

Sure, but as you say, they aren't always
useful, particularly with problem solving.

 

[PeterC]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 10:54:18 -0800, Jeff Liebermann 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? Dunno,
but I suspect the latter.

Interesting about the CCFLs - for a start I thought it was a typo for CFL,
but then realised that CCFLs are used in displays and last for years (mine
is nearly 8 years old but has been on for probably no more than 20,000h in
that period).
The article does seem to have a bit of trouble with its units, e.g. kW/h.

--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

 

[Andy Burns]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

polygonum wrote

William Sommerwerck wrote:

One might argue that all the transistors are created simultaneously in a
single processing sequence, and that the chip is, technically, a single
component.

One might argue that is the case for the 100-component circuit referred to
in the EE Times article.

One //might not// argue that. The LED lamp is made of discrete components that
are manufactured separately, and individually soldered in place.

The original article makes the very crude leap from one filament with a
claimed 0.0001% probability of failure (shouldn't that approach 100%
after a thousand hours?), to 60 electronic components yet assumes they
each have the same 0.0001% probability of failure, multiplying them up
to give a 60x higher failure rate for the LED vs the incandescent.

Subject to my eyesight, in the circuit chosen there appear to be 1
integrated circuit, 8 diodes, 8 transistors, 11 capacitors, 26
resistors, 2 chokes, 1 fuse.

Each of these classes of component have different probabilities of
failure, and in "cheap" PSU circuits it tends to be the capacitors with
the highest, for a given circuit a bit of analysis will probably reveal
three or four "pinch" components that are likely to be responsible for
>90% of all the failures.

Searching for other LED lamp schematics, was that one chosen because it
was considered a well designed circuit, or because it has a conveniently
high component count?

 

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burns wrote:

The original article makes the very crude leap from one filament with a
claimed 0.0001% probability of failure

Grrrr! 0.01% in both cases

 

[Huge]

On 2015-01-03, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 07:05:05 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news:goheaa5ogri9rn4tms95m5edkuhq25oidd@4ax.com...

Nothing profound has ever been said on one line.

Including that statement?

Of course. Everything I write has a hidden meaning,

That being "I am a pompous twat". Not very well hidden, though.

--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
"The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex
and picnics." Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Huge]

On 2015-01-03, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

[88 lines snipped]

I have a bunch of Luxo desk lamps that have a 100 W incandescent
surrounded by a 22W circular fluorescent.

Why cannot you apparently not then find your Delete key?

--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
"The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex
and picnics." Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Vir Campestris]

On 03/01/2015 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:

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'!

"Carats" ties up better with "diamond brackets"

Andy

 

[Arfa Daily]

35 years old? That thing must have been belt driven.

The oldest ones I saw were 1990-ish and from panasonic, with a huge
magnetic ballast. It was large, stupid and didn't fit in most fixtures. I
can't recall what the life was, but it was put together well with lots of
glass and silicone goop. There's no way in hell it was cheaper than a box
of incandescent bulbs, especially when you factor in the part where
electricity itself isn't really that expensive in the US.

When we owned a day nursery, it was located in a Victorian school building
that we bought. It was back in the early 80s. When we bought the place, it
had all old pendant fixtures in the rooms - probably something like 12 in
each room, so you can imagine what the electricity bill would have been
like. I replaced them all with some CFLs called "Dulux EL Globes". I would
guess that each was about 4 - 5" diameter and was completely translucent.
They took a while to warm up to full brightness, but the light output from
them was excellent, and of a very pleasant colour. They ran 5 days a week
from 7:30 in the morning until gone 6pm, and the failure rate was very very
low. They weren't cheap, mind ...

Arfa

 

[Rod Speed]

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

Arfa is an intelligent and knowledgeable person.

He clearly isn't on that particular question.

What particular question ?

The stupid claim that article he posted made about the
purported problem with a lot more components in a LED light
instead of the single one with the incandescent it replaced.

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.

You are unbelievable.

We'll see...

How did you manage to extrapolate that
mindless crap from my original post ?

The article you mindlessly posted clearly claimed that
when there are lots more components in the LED light
than in the incandescent light it replaced, that that was
absolutely certain to guarantee that it would have a shorter
life than the incandescent it replaced. Pigs arse it does.

<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote just the
puerile shit that always pours from the back of it when its
got done like a fucking dinner, as it always is by everyone.

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Henry Mydlarz" <mydhen@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43Lpw.845586$No4.116130@fx19.iad...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message news:Qkypw.703472$CW3.143099@fx07.am4...

EE Times article that came to me by email today

http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/the-big-lie-about-led-lighting.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222923405

Arfa

A few months ago I bought at Aldi about eight LED bulbs to use on my 240V
lighting (Australia). Three of them failed within about a month, one of
them does light up occasionally. Unfortunately I could not find the
receipt for them.

Henry

Hmmm. From your aspect, point made then, I would guess ??

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:54A84133.3060300@electrooptical.net...

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

Go Phil, go !

Arfa

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

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgqrjqFpufaU1@mid.individual.net...

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.

What 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.

You are unbelievable. How did you manage to extrapolate that mindless crap
from my original post ?

Sheesh ! Twat ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

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. Am I at
least close?

Not really ...

I don't like CFL lighting - that's well known. I am still reserving judgment
on LED lighting. My local supermarket recently had a major refit, and all of
their ceiling fluorescent fittings were replaced with linear LED arrays, so
at first, you don't notice that anything has changed. When I did realise, I
was surprised that the quality and intensity of the light in terms of how
well it illuminated the sales floor, was every bit as good as the original
fluorescents. They also have replaced the car park floodlights with LED
arrays, and these are crap compared to the metal halide fixtures that they
replaced. My hairdresser has replaced all of the mini spots in his ceiling
fixtures with equivalent LED bulbs. They produce a good amount of light, and
the colour is not bad, but they are unpleasantly bright to look at. They are
also not a very good shape and don't fit the fixtures terribly well. I'm not
a great fan of LED street lighting either, as I think it is harsh in
comparison to say LPS, and nothing like as effective at penetrating fog, as
it is polychromatic light. It also doesn't seem as good at producing 'even'
street lighting as LPS or even HPS is, if you can get past the yellow colour
of those types.

As everyone also knows, I am not a fan of substitute lighting technologies
brought in for eco-bollox reasons. CFLs are not as good as incandescents,
and never will be in terms of light quality, low temperature performance,
and start-up time. LEDs are better in all of those areas, but still have a
long way to go before I would consider them to be a replacement technology
for domestic incandescent bulbs, rather than the substitute which they
currently are. The 'eco' credentials for this lighting, as spouted by the
politicians and commentators, is always far too simplistic, and designed to
convince the great unwashed that they must be better because they consume so
much less energy. No account is taken of the energy budgets to make these
things in the first place, or to dispose of them (properly) when they fail.
The supermarket sales floor lights are a good example of what can be
achieved with commercial LED lighting. Where you are not trying to reproduce
sunlight - such as with airport runway and taxiway lighting - then they are,
without doubt, the best and most reliable technology for the job. There are
may LED traffic signals in the area where I live, and they seem to work
extremely well, so another area where LEDs are appropriate and good at the
job.

All of the above, we have discussed on these two groups over the years, as
the technology has changed and evolved. I merely thought that this article,
by someone who seems to be in a position to make valid comments on the
subject, had an interesting alternative view of the common wisdom that is
generally pushed. Simply that, Jeff. Hence the reason that I titled the post
"Interesting..." ...

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgp2v5FbqhpU1@mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mwHpw.359076$Ea7.183939@fx16.am4...


"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgoeh0F6q44U1@mid.individual.net...


"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Qkypw.703472$CW3.143099@fx07.am4...
EE Times article that came to me by email today

http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/en/the-big-lie-about-led-lighting.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222923405

Mindlessly superficial.

Much like you then ...

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

BWAHAHAHA !

All that 'good' stuff you've just written, then you spot my (one line)
comment - 2 days late I might add - and you revert exactly to type, as we
have all come to know and expect of you. Good old Rod, never one to let us
down old boy, are you ? I suppose the paper bag is wet because I
live on a soggy little island, right ?

Arfa

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:21:23 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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

100 watt incandescent bulb on a desk lamp? Doesn't that get rather
warm and possibly hot enough to shorten the life of the bulb?

I also use two lights, but differently. One is an area flood light,
usually on the ceiling. The other is a desk lamp with a flood light
to light up whatever I'm working on. If the work is large, two flood
lights.

This is what I've been using for close work:
<http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/luxo-flood.html>
(Oops. I just noticed it's a Ledu, not a Luxo.)

The flood light is a 120 degree "Lights of America" 2003LEDP38-65K LED
flood light purchased at Costco. 5 watts consumption and 45 watt
"equivalent" output. The manufacturer has apparently never heard of
lumens:
<http://ledlightbulbsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/05/lights-of-america-2003ledp38-65k-led.html>
<http://www.amazon.com/Lights-America-2003LEDP38-65K-8-Standard-Outdoor/product-reviews/B001BPYGQ2>
Problems. It's not sealed and the lens is slowly getting clouded,
probably from volatiles inside the PCB remaining from soldering and
sloppy cleaning. I haven't had any burnout problems, but that might
be luck. Still, it puts out plenty of light, is great for close work,
and doesn't burn my hair every time I accidentally put my head under
the light.

If you plan to use a flood light, I suggest finding a different lamp.
PAR20 or PAR30 seem about right for desk lamps.

I also bought a few of these color changing LED lights:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/350973170093>
I tried to determine which color or color combination was best for
computing, reading, tinkering, etc. No conclusion yet because the
little 3W light doesn't really put out enough lumens (140 lm) to be
considered a reading or work light. Still, it was fun to play with.

--
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

 

[Huge]

On 2015-01-05, Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

My local supermarket recently had a major refit, and all of
their ceiling fluorescent fittings were replaced with linear LED arrays, so
at first, you don't notice that anything has changed. When I did realise, I
was surprised that the quality and intensity of the light in terms of how
well it illuminated the sales floor, was every bit as good as the original
fluorescents.

Ditto. Indeed, I didn't notice until we were leaving.

--
Today is Setting Orange, the 5th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
Celebrate Mungday
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.