"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 02:20:29 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 22:28:10 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 17:38:42 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:33:40 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 23:01:40 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:18:35 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:55:55 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"William Gothberg" "William wrote
in
message
news
why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light
flicker?
reams of your **** flushed where it belongs
If half could actually see car lights flicker, the
designers wouldn't have designed them like that.
Economy.
Doesn't cost anymore to say double the pulse
rate so that even freaks like you can't see it.
I assume the higher switching speed needs better transistors etc.
You're wrong with the rates involved.
Funny how they don't all do it.
Because the designers can't see it and didnt bother to research
what flicker fusion thresholds are out there with you freaks.
A designer who only designs something to be suitable for himself
They aint doing anything even remotely like that.
is an idiot.
Freaks that demand that everything must be designed
for the most extreme freaks are terminal ****wits.
Except there are way more people with decent eyesight than you think.
Easy to claim.
Funny how it's only recently we've had them fast enough to make switch
mode power supplies and smaller coils possible.
Those operate at much higher rates again.
There must be a reason they don't just make them switch very fast,
The ones that you can see flicker dont switch very fast,
just a bit faster than those that you can see flicker.
So very easy to do then. They should all do it.
You get no say on what they get to do.
perhaps it wears the LED out?
No it does not. The reason is as I stated, the designer didnt
bother to research what freaks can still see flicker wise.
The data is readily available on google.
Irrelevant to the fact that the worst designers didnt bother.
If you think I'm a one off....
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/f...?topic=45126.0
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/th...cker.17817137/
https://electronics.stackexchange.co...owmotion-slomo
https://news.wisc.edu/curiosities-wh...his-dangerous/
As mentioned in some of the links, they can actually be quite dangerous
Thats bull****. If they actually were, the car standards would ban them.
and should be banned before loads of people get killed.
Loads of people arent killed by them.
Only a monumental idiot would make lights that anyone could see as
flashing.
They dont realise that a few freaks see them flashing.
In spades with movies in movie theaters. That frame
rate was chosen because most couldn't see that flicker.
Not the same thing.
Corse its still flicker for freaks.
It's less visible.
Still visible for freaks.
Why do you persist in calling half the population freaks,
It isnt anything even remotely like half the population.
Yes it is, by simple observation of those around you.
No one else I know sees flicker with car lights.
People can see 2000 per second if they're moving their eyes.
Clearly not a big enough problem to see it mandated with car lights.
https://theconversation.com/the-scie...fix-them-81639
"Scientists used to think we could see no more than about 90 flashes of
light a second but now we know its more like 2,000 because the eyes move
so rapidly when we change gaze from one point to another. During the eye
movement, the flicker of light creates a pattern that we can see. And this
has some surprising consequences for our health thanks to the way some
types of lighting can affect us. In particular, it could discourage people
from using more energy-saving LED lightbulbs.
Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
To find out, my colleagues and I asked people to make a saccade across a
flickering source of light and to report when they could see a pattern of
multiple images of the light during the eye movement. When the light
flickered 1,000 times a second the pattern could clearly be seen. At about
3,000 per second, the images became invisible.
In contrast, some LEDs flash only 400 times per second. This flicker is
still far too rapid to be seen directly, but some people can see multiple
images of the lamps every time they make a saccade, which is unpleasantly
distracting.
They are free to buy ones that dont have that effect.
The flickering of these LEDs may limit the uptake of the bulbs, just as
many people dislike energy-saving fluorescent lamps.
Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
When you buy an LED bulb, you currently have no way of telling whether or
not it will flicker.
Dont need to when you buy them from an operation
like Aldi which is happy to do a full return if you
decide you dont like it when you try it.
But there are already standards for LEDs that would limit flicker to
acceptable levels. So ensuring these are met could make a big difference
to our attempt to make our homes and workplaces more energy efficient."
Depends on how may find they dont like that effect.
Don't you ever talk to anyone?
Corse I do and you can see me doing that, ****wit.
Then I guess you only know those with poor eyesight.
Nothing poor about eyesight that doesnt see car lights flicker.
who can all see something you can't?
Because thats what they are, freaks.
Is a dog a freak because it can smell better than we can?
No, because its only the freaks of dogs that can't.
Ah, so you just accept the majority as being correct.
It isnt about being correct.
So Einstein was a freak
Corse he was, mentally.
because he was one of very few people who was that clever.
Duh.
You would have had him burned at the stake wouldn't you?
If you can't do any better than this mindless
**** I will be flushing your **** where it belongs.
I pointed out that Einstein was cleverer than most, and you said that made
him a freak.
Corse it does.
And then you went on with that **** about burning him at
the stake and **** like that will be flushed where it belongs.
You lose, big time.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed drunken psychotic fantasyland.
I mean it's not normal to be that clever,
Duh.
there must be something wrong with him, best we get rid of him?
There you go, off in your pathetic little drug
crazed drunken psychotic fantasyland, as always.
Or does it perhaps have the ability to detect what we miss?
Yes they do with sound unless they have gone deaf.
My parents believed that dogs had ESP because they
can work out when one of them is coming home long
before any human can. The answer is trivial, the dog
can hear the family vehicle long before a human can.
Which makes them useful, they can do something we can't.
Which might just be why we use them to sniff out stupid
druggys like you at airports and other places, stupid.
A human who could do the same would be equally useful,
Nothing useful about seeing car lights flickering, ****wit.
It means they can see reality, not something your brain made up.
But they dont when the flash rate is higher.
yet you'd call them a freak.
I call a freak a freak and drug crazed drunken
psychotics drug crazed drunken psychotics, freak.
You call anyone that can do something you can't a freak.
Just another of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuses for a troll.
What about someone who can lift twice the weight of someone else his size?
Is he a freak
Corse he is.
or just stronger and more useful?
Or both. But there is nothing useful about
the freaks who see car lights flickering.
What about someone who can play tennis well because his reactions are
twice as fast as yours? Is he a freak too?
Nothing to do with my reactions, what matters is how common
that is in the general population. Of course someone who is only
say 1% of the population is a freak. He may or may not be a useful
freak. Einstein obviously was, but someone who sees car light
flickering clearly isnt a useful freak and is in fact a useless freak.
LED lights on cars are deliberately pulsed to get more effective
brightness (as far as the human eye is concerned, peak brightness
is
what enables you to see better) from the same LEDs with less heat.
But LEDs go completely off between pulses.
And so doubling the pulse rate doesn't cost anymore.
Movie theatres (you mean cinemas,
No I do not.
theatres are for plays, they have a stage,
Movie theaters arent for plays and they don't have stages.
you're talking American)
Wrong, as always.
Cinema = big screen and projector.
Theatre = stage with live actors.
Wrong, as always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre
"Theatre or theater[1] is a collaborative form of fine art that uses
live
performers, typically actors or actresses, to present the experience
of
a
real or imagined event before a live audience in a specific place,
often
a
stage. The performers may communicate this experience to the audience
through combinations of gesture, speech, song, music, and dance.
Elements
of art, such as painted scenery and stagecraft such as lighting are
used
to enhance the physicality, presence and immediacy of the
experience.[2]
The specific place of the performance is also named by the word
"theatre"
as derived from the Ancient Greek θ*ατρον (théatron, "a place for
viewing"), itself from θεάομαι (theáomai, "to see", "to watch", "to
observe")."
Thats just one type of theater, stupid. Even you
must be aware of operating theaters which have
no stage and no play being performed.
They also have live people in them.
So do plenty of non theaters.
A cinema just plays a film, no people are present.
No one watching the movie at all eh ?
On the ****ing stage obviously.
Completely off with the ****ing fairys, as always.
No, you're using US English and that's all there is to it.
UK: Cinema = for films, Theatre = for plays.
US: Movie theatre = for films, Theatre = for plays.
We invented the language,
Wrong, as always. Most of it you clowns stole from wherever.
the Americans ****ed it up.
Even more of a pathetic excuse for a troll than you usually manage.
Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself uses stuff they added
like ok, airport, TV. sitcom, soup for some TV series etc etc etc.
You're using the wrong one.
You are wrong, as always.
Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_(disambiguation)
don't illuminate the screen with LEDs.
Duh. And irrelevant to whether the frame rate was
chosen because most don't see any flicker with it.
Flicker didn't only happen with LEDs, stupid.
They happen more so as they switch on and off instantly.
Wrong, as always.
LEDs switch on ad off faster than any other form of light, that is an
indisputable fact.
Irrelevant to the fact that it isnt how quickly
they switch that matters, its the pulse RATE
that determines how visible the flicker is.
Bull****. Consider a variable duty cycle.
That isnt the reason some car lights
flicker for you and others dont.
I haven't finished yet, read the next line.
Get ****ed, again.
As that approaches 1, there's no flicker. Clearly LEDs have a much
lower duty cycle than that.
LCD screens dont.
They aren't LEDs.
A decent phosphor coating on a CRT will have a duty cycle of say 0.8 to
0.9,
CRTs dont have a duty cycle.
Of course they ****ing do!
No they dont. The phosphor brightness decays, there is no duty cycle.
Show a white screen on a CRT. Put the image onto a scope using a light
detector. The light obviously comes on full brightness on each scan, then
must drift off dimmer ready for the next frame.
That isnt duty cycle, thats decay.
And there isnt even any decay with LCDs.
which will be much harder to see flickering.
Wrong, as always.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just ****ing thick?
A duty cycle of 0.1 will flicker more than a duty cycle of 0.9!
There is no duty cycle with CRTs.
Why do you think Panasonic made a 100Hz TV?
Because some freaks can see flicker at 50Hz and are free to pay
more
for
something faster.
Being able to detect something you can't makes them better than you.
Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying
something. Much worse in fact when car lights flicker.
Perhaps you should ditch your sense of smell, because smelling
things
you
don't like is annoying.
There is nothing that I find annoying about any
smell except a big rotting animal corpse in hot
weather and that's so rare that it just isnt a problem.
Being able to detect (and being annoyed about) something that smells
bad
is a good thing.
Wrong, as always, particularly with stuff like paint etc.
Paint doesn't smell bad.
Wrong, as always.
Most people consider biological smells, like dog ****, to be repulsive.
Not repulsive so much as better when its not there.
But they consider artificial smells, like marker pens, nice.
Now try that with chlorine or even just bleach.
Bad smells mean something is harmful, like ****.
**** isnt harmful when you are just smelling it.
It warns you not to eat it.
Pity about durians.
When you go to take a bite of food, if it smells bad, you don't put it in
your mouth as it's probably gone off.
Pity about durians.
And durians smell awful but are fine to eat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durian
The plant is most likely trying to put animals off eating it.
Wrong, as always.
It makes you want to get rid of it.
No need to get rid of an animal corpse.
Disease.
Just another of your pathetic little drug
crazed drunken pig ignorant fantasys.
So you think it's ok to have dead bodies lying around your house?
Irrelevant to whether there is any disease involved.
reams of your **** flushed where it belongs
And a damned nuisance with fresh paint etc.
I poison mice because its more convenient to
do that than to fart around with traps and never
have a problem with any smell from dead ones.
More fun to trap them and watch them slowly die.
Only for psychopaths.
Mice are vermin,
Some have them as pets.
Some people keep spiders as pets ffs.
They do indeed, and snakes too.
Just because you **** your pants when you see one...
why would you care about them?
I dont, I poison them. But I'm not a psychopath so I dont
catch them and get off on watching them die slowly.
Either you care about them or you don't.
Its never that black and white.
Anyway you have no problem killing them, yet you won't torture them
first?
Because I am not a psychopath.
Death is 1 billion times worse than torture.
Irrelevant to whether only a psychopath gets off
on catching mice and watching them die slowly.
Anyone with any sense knows that killing it is 1 billion times worse, so
the torture doesn't matter.
Only a psychopath gets off on catching
mice and watching them die slowly.
I kill them the least effort way and thats by putting
out poison and adding more if its consumed.
I'd much rather you tortured me then let me live, than kill me
instantly.
Doesnt matter what some psychopath would rather.
Nevermind the advantage of smell....
Why do you think Iiyama made 90Hz monitors?
Because some freaks can see flicker at 50Hz and
are free to pay more for something faster.
High frequency monitors were very popular.
Not because many ever saw any flicker.
There would be no other reason.
Wrong, as always.
State the other reason then.
Already did.
I'm still waiting....
You need to hold your breath.
[FFS this is like getting blood out of a stone]
And it was proven that low frequency ones cause headaches and eye
damage
for people using them all day in offices.
Bull****.
No it isn't.
Corse it is.
Go do some research
Did that before you were even born thanks. NO ONE
ever got any eye damage from lower frequency monitors.
https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/com...ision-syndrome
Just because some ****wit claims something...
Actually many many people.
None actually with your stupid claim about eye damage. If they
really did damage eyes, they wouldn't be allowed to sell them.
It's damn easy to find thousands of references that support my claims.
Not one with that stupid claim about eye damage.
Just admit you're wrong.
I'm not with eye damage.
and stop yourself being so utterly clueless.
You're the one with that problem, as always.
At my first place of work it was actually one of the regulations that
anyone could request a higher frequency monitor if they believed it
was
annoying or giving them headaches.
That operation actually was that stupid ? Irrelevant
to your stupid pig ignorant claim about eye damage.
Funny how the better monitors took the headaches away.
Funny how no one ever got any eye damage with the standard ones.
You don't need eye damage to give you a headache.
You were the one making the stupid claim about eye damage.