LED car lights flicker - no need!

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

Strange how you are picky about so many things, but are more keen to save
pennies on electricity than have decent quality light.

It's because I care about decent quality light that I am using LEDs.
CFLs are dreadful, the worst light output and an intolerable spectrum
that makes the human face look dead. If you want to live in the opening
scenes of "Joe Versus the Volcano" or inside the Matrix, install CFLs
and be my guest.

If you were facing the most expensive charge per kWH in Europe you would
also think carefully about the use of lighting.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

 

[Steve Firth]

Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/04/2013 13:48, Steve Firth wrote:

CFLs are quoted as 46-75 lm/W[1];

glow. I replaced four 25W E14 R50 bulbs in downlighters with 4x14W CFLs
(280 lm; 20 lm/W according to the info sheet). The light output was
appaLling and resulted in needing to use two standard lamps and a table
lamp in that room as well as the CFLs just to see what one was doing.

Well, yes, 1000 lumens isn't enough. But why were they so low?

Primarily because CFLs are shite, one assumes.

Are you aware of any E14/R50 CFLs with better light output? These were
the best that I could find and they didn't have the same dimensions as a
standard R50 bulb. The Ikea CFLs do have the same dimensions and have
even lower light oputput.

I'm not that bothered, the LEDs provide more light and use less power,
and actually fit the downlighter. At that point I stop worrying about
CFLs which are now dodo technology.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

 

[Nick Finnigan]

On 28/04/2013 17:06, Steve Firth wrote:

Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/04/2013 13:48, Steve Firth wrote:

CFLs are quoted as 46-75 lm/W[1];

glow. I replaced four 25W E14 R50 bulbs in downlighters with 4x14W CFLs
(280 lm; 20 lm/W according to the info sheet). The light output was
appaLling and resulted in needing to use two standard lamps and a table
lamp in that room as well as the CFLs just to see what one was doing.

Well, yes, 1000 lumens isn't enough. But why were they so low?

Primarily because CFLs are shite, one assumes.

Are you aware of any E14/R50 CFLs with better light output?

E14 R50 14W CFL bring up an ebay seller with 900 lumens, which is within
the normal range you quoted, rather than being worse than tungsten.

 

[Dave Plowman]

In article <1l21nhe.1odksczeeeuh7N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Strange how you are picky about so many things, but are more keen to
save pennies on electricity than have decent quality light.

It's because I care about decent quality light that I am using LEDs.
CFLs are dreadful, the worst light output and an intolerable spectrum
that makes the human face look dead.

Then don't use CFLs.

If you want to live in the opening
scenes of "Joe Versus the Volcano" or inside the Matrix, install CFLs
and be my guest.

If you were facing the most expensive charge per kWH in Europe you would
also think carefully about the use of lighting.

Not if it doesn't do what I want.

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Dave Plowman dave@davesound.co.uk London SW 12

 

[Dave Plowman]

In article <1l21nmq.hsjmpi1x1bcewN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Not warm white then. Warm white is more akin to evening light.

What LED manufacturers call "warm white" 3200K, is what CFL
manufacturers would term "blazing actinic light", if their claims about
daylight white (guttering candle colour) are anything to go by.

All you are confirming is that direct incandescent replacements are all
rubbish.

I'm glad your happy with poor light quality to save a few pennies.

I'm glad that you don't know what you are talking about.

You're actually excelling yourself here. Proving just how tight you are.

--
*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway

Dave Plowman dave@davesound.co.uk London SW 12

 

[Steve Firth]

Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/04/2013 17:06, Steve Firth wrote:
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/04/2013 13:48, Steve Firth wrote:

CFLs are quoted as 46-75 lm/W[1];

glow. I replaced four 25W E14 R50 bulbs in downlighters with 4x14W CFLs
(280 lm; 20 lm/W according to the info sheet). The light output was
appaLling and resulted in needing to use two standard lamps and a table
lamp in that room as well as the CFLs just to see what one was doing.

Well, yes, 1000 lumens isn't enough. But why were they so low?

Primarily because CFLs are shite, one assumes.

Are you aware of any E14/R50 CFLs with better light output?

E14 R50 14W CFL bring up an ebay seller with 900 lumens, which is within
the normal range you quoted, rather than being worse than tungsten.

Giving a URL would help. I can't find any such thing on eBay. Unless you
mean the Bridgelux bulbs which aren't R50 and are LED not CFL. Searching
for E14 R50 14W CFL produced zero results.

Omitting 14W produces some results but these are 5W (100 lumens) and 9W
- lumens not stated.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

 

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

What LED manufacturers call "warm white" 3200K, is what CFL
manufacturers would term "blazing actinic light", if their claims about
daylight white (guttering candle colour) are anything to go by.

All you are confirming is that direct incandescent replacements are all
rubbish.

No, I'm confirming that CFLs are rubbish.

I'm glad your happy with poor light quality to save a few pennies.

I'm glad that you don't know what you are talking about.

You're actually excelling yourself here. Proving just how tight you are.

And you're excelling yourself at talking twaddle this evening. Are you
under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices that provide
true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <1l21noe.w6ie6y90dnfdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> escribió:

output. A mix of three LED to 2 halogen bulbs keeps things stable.

That's probably quite a good idea anyway, you get the benefit of the LED
power saving combined with the full(er) spectrum of the halogens.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

 

[Dave Plowman]

In article <1l21y82.oq10an1jywi3zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Are you
under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices that provide
true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

Halogen is certainly adequate for most purposes. LED falls far short. But
I do realise you have been conned by the hype.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman dave@davesound.co.uk London SW 12

 

[Dave Plowman]

In article
<1351649619388925488.006806%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.eternal-september.org>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
In article <1l21y82.oq10an1jywi3zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Are you under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices
that provide true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

Halogen is certainly adequate for most purposes.

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important.
Check this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film
or a digital camera set to daylight mode.

You talk about film and colour rendering in the same breath?

Go back to school and learn some basics.

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Dave Plowman dave@davesound.co.uk London SW 12

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:59:04 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
In article
1351649619388925488.006806%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.eternal-september.org>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
In article <1l21y82.oq10an1jywi3zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Are you under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices
that provide true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

Halogen is certainly adequate for most purposes.

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important.
Check this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film
or a digital camera set to daylight mode.

You talk about film and colour rendering in the same breath?

Go back to school and learn some basics.

sigh> go to school and learn about logical fallacy.

Take your own advice, psycho! <BG>
<tsk>

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:14:17 +0100, Dave Plowman
<dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

In article
1351649619388925488.006806%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.eternal-september.org>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
In article <1l21y82.oq10an1jywi3zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Are you under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices
that provide true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

Halogen is certainly adequate for most purposes.

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important.
Check this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film
or a digital camera set to daylight mode.

You talk about film and colour rendering in the same breath?

Go back to school and learn some basics.

<BG> Seems, you should do the same, psycho!

 

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1l21y82.oq10an1jywi3zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Are you
under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices that provide
true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

Halogen is certainly adequate for most purposes.

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important. Check
this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film or a
digital camera set to daylight mode.

Yellow, isn't it?

LED falls far short. But I do realise you have been conned by the hype.

No Dave, I bought two bulbs and was sceptical about how good they might be.
Given that the light output was better than the halogens and CFLs they
replaced I bought some more.

However I am aware that your opinion means more than fact.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:12:51 -0700, The Rectum, impersonating his master,
The Peeler, wrote:

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important.
Check this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film
or a digital camera set to daylight mode.

You talk about film and colour rendering in the same breath?

Go back to school and learn some basics.

BG> Seems, you should do the same, psycho!

Seems you need to apply for another prolonged stay in the loony bin,
Usenet's dingleberry! <BG>

--
sully to our resident psychopath:
"frankly you're a dingleberry on usenet's ass"
MID: <be3854ef-b0ea-4bfa-b002-0d19bbdd200b@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:12:16 -0700, The Rectum, impersonating his master,
The Peeler, wrote:

sigh> go to school and learn about logical fallacy.

Take your own advice, psycho! <BG
tsk

Ready to lose the very last newsserver that hasn't yet knocked you off, The
Rectum? LOL

--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, The Retard (aka "The Rectum").

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:34:13 +0200, NOT The Peeler
<finishingoff@themoronicRevd.invalid> impersonating his master, The
Peeler, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:12:51 -0700, The Rectum, impersonating his master,
The Peeler, wrote:

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important.
Check this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film
or a digital camera set to daylight mode.

You talk about film and colour rendering in the same breath?

Go back to school and learn some basics.

BG> Seems, you should do the same, psycho!

Seems you need to apply for another prolonged stay in the loony bin,
Usenet's dingleberry! <BG

Seems, you need to do the same, psycho! <VBG>

 

[Steve Firth]

Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

In article
1351649619388925488.006806%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.eternal-september.org>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman <dave@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
In article <1l21y82.oq10an1jywi3zN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Are you under the illusion that tungsten bulbs are adequate devices
that provide true colour rendition of the scenes they illuminate?

Halogen is certainly adequate for most purposes.

No it's not. It's hopeless if accurate cour rendition is important.
Check this by taking a photograph by halogen light using daylight film
or a digital camera set to daylight mode.

You talk about film and colour rendering in the same breath?

Go back to school and learn some basics.

<sigh> go to school and learn about logical fallacy.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:35:26 +0200, NOT The Peeler
<finishingoff@themoronicRevd.invalid> impersonating his master, The
Peeler, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:12:16 -0700, The Rectum, impersonating his master,
The Peeler, wrote:


sigh> go to school and learn about logical fallacy.

Take your own advice, psycho! <BG
tsk

Ready to lose the very last newsserver that hasn't yet knocked you off, The
Rectum? LOL

<BG> Seems, you're about to get clobbered again, innit, my precious
punching bag.

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:58:20 -0700, The Rectum, impersonating his master,
The Peeler, wrote:

BG> Seems, you should do the same, psycho!

Seems you need to apply for another prolonged stay in the loony bin,
Usenet's dingleberry! <BG

Seems, you need to do the same, psycho! <VBG

<BG> Your psychopathy keeps showing, psychopath!

--
tomcov about "The Rectum":
"Assholes come
Assholes go
But the revd asshole goes on forever.
(and he speaks through it)"
MID: <83356bf8-8666-4f4f-ac9a-ec5e9d5835fd@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:01:59 +0200, NOT The Peeler
<finishingoff@themoronicRevd.invalid> impersonating his master, The
Peeler, wrote:

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:58:20 -0700, The Rectum, impersonating his master,
The Peeler, wrote:

BG> Seems, you should do the same, psycho!

Seems you need to apply for another prolonged stay in the loony bin,
Usenet's dingleberry! <BG

Seems, you need to do the same, psycho! <VBG

BG> Your psychopathy keeps showing, psychopath!

Seems, it's YOURS which is blooming again, psycho! <EBG>