MassiveProng wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:15:15 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


I maintain scores of pcs, drive failures are common in "my little
circle". I'm not just talking "dead" drives, but ones that develop
bad sectors visible to the OS. Look at your system logs in xp for
any "disk" errors. They'll show up there and xp won't say a thing
about it other than that. It'll just keep on retrying the same dead
sectors, it's pitiful.


That makes me even more glad to be running Vista then.

I don't know for sure yet, but I'm don't have high expectations. Watch your
system logs and see.

Also, you still using FAT32?!

Unfortunately not. The xp machines all have NTFS filesystems, one only has
to do a search to see how slow it is.

AFAIK NTFS drives don't have the same problems, and the hard drive
itself is supposed to map out bad sectors automatically, and
transparently on a well designed and manufactured drive.

IDE drives do exactly that. When the OS starts seeing the bad space, it's
because the drive has run out of room to remap the bad sectors. Almost all
drives have some bad sectors on them, but the hardware automatically remaps
the space. There is only so much room in the tables and only so many spare
sectors.

My latest fun venture involved a drive with legitcheckcontroll.dll stored in
the bad area. Made for much fun with WGA authentication updates. Something
to the effect of "M$ cannot verify the authenticity of this copy windows
blah blah blah.....". It wouldn't come out and say that it was a bogus copy
(which I knew full well was legitimate), it did make threatening remarks
about it. I ghosted the drive to a new one and suddenly all was well with
applying the WGA Notification garbage and then the threatening remarks
suddenly went away. They suck......

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:28:07 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:10:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

We will have to see on that. It sure looks like they're burning out
in traffic signals and car tail lights fast enough.

That's bull****. Bus Lines, as well as traffic controllers switched
to them SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT that they have a longer life
span, and lower consumption rate.

And you don't see failures? Take a good look at traffic lights, you can
usually find dead pixels in them. They might last longer, but they aren't
eternal.

---
Good quality LEDs have lifetimes in excess of 50000 hours with, I
believe, the criterion for failure being a halving of the light
output.
---


On a slightly different note, I'm disturbed at the number of vehicles I see
that don't have working tail lights. Not old vehicles, but newer ones (3
years old) that shouldn't have these kinds of failures. It looks to me like
over-all reliability is going the other way while expense and complexity are
going up. I know those failures are for other reasons, but they are
failures none the less.

---
I suspect that in cars, early LED failure is due to the nasty
electrical environment, and primarily to high-voltage reverse bias
spikes PIVing the diodes.
---

The light source will be
expensive and it will have a limited life (man-made at least).

Bulbs yes. LEDs, no. That stats already exist.

Like always, they will be operated at the maximum power dissipation that
gives a life expectancy just longer than the warranty period. Why do you
think it would be any different? Just look at regular light bulbs, a 10%
reduction in voltage greatly increases life expectancy. Given that, it
stands to reason that manufacturers could just make the filament a little
sturdier to accomplish the same thing. Why aren't any manufacturers doing
that?

---
Make the filament any thicker (sturdier, but lower resistance) and
you'd need a lot more power to get the same brightness as well as
making the lamp cost more. Make it any thinner (less sturdy and
higher resistance) and you'd have to make it shorter and it would
burn out more quickly.

The failure mode for the lamp (other than gross mechanical abuse) is
evaporation of the tungsten from the filament to the point where the
filament can no longer support its own weight and it breaks.

There is no such failure mode in an LED. See "Failure Modes" in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode


--
JF

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:28:07 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:10:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

We will have to see on that. It sure looks like they're burning
out in traffic signals and car tail lights fast enough.

That's bull****. Bus Lines, as well as traffic controllers
switched to them SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT that they have a
longer life span, and lower consumption rate.

And you don't see failures? Take a good look at traffic lights, you
can usually find dead pixels in them. They might last longer, but
they aren't eternal.

---
Good quality LEDs have lifetimes in excess of 50000 hours with, I
believe, the criterion for failure being a halving of the light
output.
---

I don't disagree with that, but that's under proper operating conditions.
Too much current and the brightness rolls off real fast.

On a slightly different note, I'm disturbed at the number of
vehicles I see that don't have working tail lights. Not old
vehicles, but newer ones (3 years old) that shouldn't have these
kinds of failures. It looks to me like over-all reliability is
going the other way while expense and complexity are going up. I
know those failures are for other reasons, but they are failures
none the less.

---
I suspect that in cars, early LED failure is due to the nasty
electrical environment, and primarily to high-voltage reverse bias
spikes PIVing the diodes.
---

Sounds good to me. I was referring to the number of vehicles with total
failures due to high side drivers or something along those lines. Probably
switch failures more than anything. I really didn't like LED tail lights at
first. Because they illuminate so much faster than incandescant bulbs, they
would trigger some kind of sense of urgency in my mind. As if my
subconcious was interpreting it as though the guy in front was slamming on
his brakes. I seem to have adapted for the most part now. They're plenty
bright enough.


The light source will be
expensive and it will have a limited life (man-made at least).

Bulbs yes. LEDs, no. That stats already exist.

Like always, they will be operated at the maximum power dissipation
that gives a life expectancy just longer than the warranty period.
Why do you think it would be any different? Just look at regular
light bulbs, a 10% reduction in voltage greatly increases life
expectancy. Given that, it stands to reason that manufacturers
could just make the filament a little sturdier to accomplish the
same thing. Why aren't any manufacturers doing that?

---
Make the filament any thicker (sturdier, but lower resistance) and
you'd need a lot more power to get the same brightness as well as
making the lamp cost more. Make it any thinner (less sturdy and
higher resistance) and you'd have to make it shorter and it would
burn out more quickly.

Sure, but there are heavy duty bulbs that are less resistant to blowing from
a shock. Since different wattage bulbs are simply different resistance, it
seems entirely possible to build an almost indestructable filament of any
desired brightness for only a little more money.

The failure mode for the lamp (other than gross mechanical abuse) is
evaporation of the tungsten from the filament to the point where the
filament can no longer support its own weight and it breaks.

There is no such failure mode in an LED. See "Failure Modes" in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

Well ok, but the end result is the same.....darkness. ;-) I saw a display
showing some of these neato LED assemblys for autos/motorcycles. After only
a few weeks, brightness was noticeably reduced and some LEDs had failed in
the strings. Too much current for no sensible reason. By lowering the
current by 25%, brightness would have probably only been slightly reduced
but lamp life would have been years instead of weeks. Obviously these
weren't meant to be on static display 24 hours/day, but I think it makes my
point that the manufacturer intends for it to fail.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:00:08 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Obviously these
weren't meant to be on static display 24 hours/day, but I think it makes my
point that the manufacturer intends for it to fail.


No, they do not. There are, however, engineers working in such
position as to be those responsible for designing driver circuits that
are so far off the mark as to make it appear that way.

Your assertion is silly. It would be a bad move for a maker to do
that as they would be under the scrutiny of consumers from the start.

What you claim makes no sense for them. You think they are more
interested in repair part sales than making a viable product to start
with.

Your logic is flawed as the replacement parts do not come from the
vehicle manufacturers, so they would make no profit from such a
circumstance.

Some of the things you say make you appear almost as bad as The
RichTard GriseTard. And that's a bad hayride to be on.

Not very impressive in one respect: I can see my news reader on a 12"
diagonal laptop just fine. Large screens are quite useful for multiple
application windows, but I fail to see the need to expand one across the
entire screen. Unless your eyesight is failing and you need big fonts.

Didn't your mom tell you doing that would make you go blind?

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
c (velocity of light in a vacuum) = 1.8x10^12 furlongs per fortnight

Anthony Fremont wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:10:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

We will have to see on that. It sure looks like they're burning out
in traffic signals and car tail lights fast enough.

That's bull****. Bus Lines, as well as traffic controllers switched
to them SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT that they have a longer life
span, and lower consumption rate.

And you don't see failures? Take a good look at traffic lights, you can
usually find dead pixels in them. They might last longer, but they aren't
eternal.

I've seen quite a few burned out LED strings in center mount brake light
assemblies. These appear to have been adopted before luxury cars started
going to LED brake/tail lights and probably were not as well engineered
to withstand auto electrical environments. They were probably rushed out
to meet the need for a low profile fixture to suit styling needs with
little regard for lamp life.

On a slightly different note, I'm disturbed at the number of vehicles I see
that don't have working tail lights. Not old vehicles, but newer ones (3
years old) that shouldn't have these kinds of failures. It looks to me like
over-all reliability is going the other way while expense and complexity are
going up. I know those failures are for other reasons, but they are
failures none the less.

I recently replaced a burned out taillight bulb in my Landcruiser. It
was the factory lamp, 28 years old. Its not likely that the new lamp
will last nearly that long (or a new truck, for that matter).

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
What color is a chameleon looking in a mirror?

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:51:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:

Not very impressive in one respect: I can see my news reader on a 12"
diagonal laptop just fine. Large screens are quite useful for multiple
application windows, but I fail to see the need to expand one across the
entire screen. Unless your eyesight is failing and you need big fonts.

Didn't your mom tell you doing that would make you go blind?


Your stupidity is what is not very impressive, dip****.

More than computer display services end up on wide form factor HDTV
monitors, idiot!

Seems you never did look up what HDMI stands for. Figures... still
miles behind the rest, as you always will be with your retarded
attitude.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:02:11 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:

They were probably rushed out
to meet the need for a low profile fixture to suit styling needs with
little regard for lamp life.


Tail/brake light assemblies are no smaller than they ever were. If
anything, many are bigger and ALL have DOT standards to conform to,
dumbass.

Do you guess at everything you come up with?

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:00:08 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:28:07 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:10:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

We will have to see on that. It sure looks like they're burning
out in traffic signals and car tail lights fast enough.

That's bull****. Bus Lines, as well as traffic controllers
switched to them SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT that they have a
longer life span, and lower consumption rate.

And you don't see failures? Take a good look at traffic lights, you
can usually find dead pixels in them. They might last longer, but
they aren't eternal.

---
Good quality LEDs have lifetimes in excess of 50000 hours with, I
believe, the criterion for failure being a halving of the light
output.
---

I don't disagree with that, but that's under proper operating conditions.
Too much current and the brightness rolls off real fast.

---
Well, duh...
---


On a slightly different note, I'm disturbed at the number of
vehicles I see that don't have working tail lights. Not old
vehicles, but newer ones (3 years old) that shouldn't have these
kinds of failures. It looks to me like over-all reliability is
going the other way while expense and complexity are going up. I
know those failures are for other reasons, but they are failures
none the less.

---
I suspect that in cars, early LED failure is due to the nasty
electrical environment, and primarily to high-voltage reverse bias
spikes PIVing the diodes.
---

Sounds good to me. I was referring to the number of vehicles with total
failures due to high side drivers or something along those lines. Probably
switch failures more than anything. I really didn't like LED tail lights at
first. Because they illuminate so much faster than incandescant bulbs, they
would trigger some kind of sense of urgency in my mind. As if my
subconcious was interpreting it as though the guy in front was slamming on
his brakes. I seem to have adapted for the most part now. They're plenty
bright enough.


The light source will be
expensive and it will have a limited life (man-made at least).

Bulbs yes. LEDs, no. That stats already exist.

Like always, they will be operated at the maximum power dissipation
that gives a life expectancy just longer than the warranty period.
Why do you think it would be any different? Just look at regular
light bulbs, a 10% reduction in voltage greatly increases life
expectancy. Given that, it stands to reason that manufacturers
could just make the filament a little sturdier to accomplish the
same thing. Why aren't any manufacturers doing that?

---
Make the filament any thicker (sturdier, but lower resistance) and
you'd need a lot more power to get the same brightness as well as
making the lamp cost more. Make it any thinner (less sturdy and
higher resistance) and you'd have to make it shorter and it would
burn out more quickly.

Sure, but there are heavy duty bulbs that are less resistant to blowing from
a shock. Since different wattage bulbs are simply different resistance, it
seems entirely possible to build an almost indestructable filament of any
desired brightness for only a little more money.

---
While different resistances are what's required to dissipate the
specified power, the thickness and length of the filament is going
to determine how much power is going to be radiated as visible
light.

See: Voltage, light output, and lifetime at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb


The failure mode for the lamp (other than gross mechanical abuse) is
evaporation of the tungsten from the filament to the point where the
filament can no longer support its own weight and it breaks.

There is no such failure mode in an LED. See "Failure Modes" in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

Well ok, but the end result is the same.....darkness. ;-) I saw a display
showing some of these neato LED assemblys for autos/motorcycles. After only
a few weeks, brightness was noticeably reduced and some LEDs had failed in
the strings. Too much current for no sensible reason. By lowering the
current by 25%, brightness would have probably only been slightly reduced
but lamp life would have been years instead of weeks. Obviously these
weren't meant to be on static display 24 hours/day, but I think it makes my
point that the manufacturer intends for it to fail.

---
I seriously doubt whether the LED manufacturers are the weak link in
the chain. If it exists at all, I suggest that its somewhere down
the chain where the unscrupulous are trying to trim the
dollars-per-lumen bottom line by overdriving fewer than the number
of LEDs required to generate the desired light level reliably.

Also, it's possible the display could have been rigged to run the
lamps very brightly as "attention grabbers".


--
JF

John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:00:08 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:28:07 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:10:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

We will have to see on that. It sure looks like they're burning
out in traffic signals and car tail lights fast enough.

That's bull****. Bus Lines, as well as traffic controllers
switched to them SPECIFICALLY due to the FACT that they have a
longer life span, and lower consumption rate.

And you don't see failures? Take a good look at traffic lights,
you can usually find dead pixels in them. They might last longer,
but they aren't eternal.

---
Good quality LEDs have lifetimes in excess of 50000 hours with, I
believe, the criterion for failure being a halving of the light
output.
---

I don't disagree with that, but that's under proper operating
conditions. Too much current and the brightness rolls off real fast.

---
Well, duh...
---


On a slightly different note, I'm disturbed at the number of
vehicles I see that don't have working tail lights. Not old
vehicles, but newer ones (3 years old) that shouldn't have these
kinds of failures. It looks to me like over-all reliability is
going the other way while expense and complexity are going up. I
know those failures are for other reasons, but they are failures
none the less.

---
I suspect that in cars, early LED failure is due to the nasty
electrical environment, and primarily to high-voltage reverse bias
spikes PIVing the diodes.
---

Sounds good to me. I was referring to the number of vehicles with
total failures due to high side drivers or something along those
lines. Probably switch failures more than anything. I really
didn't like LED tail lights at first. Because they illuminate so
much faster than incandescant bulbs, they would trigger some kind of
sense of urgency in my mind. As if my subconcious was interpreting
it as though the guy in front was slamming on his brakes. I seem to
have adapted for the most part now. They're plenty bright enough.


The light source will be
expensive and it will have a limited life (man-made at least).

Bulbs yes. LEDs, no. That stats already exist.

Like always, they will be operated at the maximum power dissipation
that gives a life expectancy just longer than the warranty period.
Why do you think it would be any different? Just look at regular
light bulbs, a 10% reduction in voltage greatly increases life
expectancy. Given that, it stands to reason that manufacturers
could just make the filament a little sturdier to accomplish the
same thing. Why aren't any manufacturers doing that?

---
Make the filament any thicker (sturdier, but lower resistance) and
you'd need a lot more power to get the same brightness as well as
making the lamp cost more. Make it any thinner (less sturdy and
higher resistance) and you'd have to make it shorter and it would
burn out more quickly.

Sure, but there are heavy duty bulbs that are less resistant to
blowing from a shock. Since different wattage bulbs are simply
different resistance, it seems entirely possible to build an almost
indestructable filament of any desired brightness for only a little
more money.

---
While different resistances are what's required to dissipate the
specified power, the thickness and length of the filament is going
to determine how much power is going to be radiated as visible
light.

See: Voltage, light output, and lifetime at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb


The failure mode for the lamp (other than gross mechanical abuse) is
evaporation of the tungsten from the filament to the point where the
filament can no longer support its own weight and it breaks.

There is no such failure mode in an LED. See "Failure Modes" in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

Well ok, but the end result is the same.....darkness. ;-) I saw a
display showing some of these neato LED assemblys for
autos/motorcycles. After only a few weeks, brightness was
noticeably reduced and some LEDs had failed in the strings. Too
much current for no sensible reason. By lowering the current by
25%, brightness would have probably only been slightly reduced but
lamp life would have been years instead of weeks. Obviously these
weren't meant to be on static display 24 hours/day, but I think it
makes my point that the manufacturer intends for it to fail.

---
I seriously doubt whether the LED manufacturers are the weak link in
the chain. If it exists at all, I suggest that its somewhere down
the chain where the unscrupulous are trying to trim the
dollars-per-lumen bottom line by overdriving fewer than the number
of LEDs required to generate the desired light level reliably.

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly manufacturer is
the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are not used continuously, but
are for looking cool while the bike is parked outside the bar for a couple
hours. These are targeted towards a market segment where they would likely
see much less than 100 hours. I suspect that on the display board they were
actually seeing a bit less voltage than it normally would installed, and
under allot better conditions. It's just that 12 hours per day operation in
a static display is an outrageously heavier than normal duty cycle.

Also, it's possible the display could have been rigged to run the
lamps very brightly as "attention grabbers".

It's possible. It certainly got my attention when I noticed how short of a
time it took for them to start looking bad.
:-/

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:02:11 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

What color is a chameleon looking in a mirror?

---
Probably the color of its reflected background.

How to confuse a chameleon?

Put one on the Sunday funnies.


--
JF

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:02:11 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

What color is a chameleon looking in a mirror?

---
Probably the color of its reflected background.

How to confuse a chameleon?

Put one on the Sunday funnies.

--
JF


Or on a engineering notebook (where you check to see if the chameleon
can get all of his straight lines). ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly manufacturer is
the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are not used continuously, but
are for looking cool while the bike is parked outside the bar for a couple
hours.


All LEDs driven properly are meant for 100% full time duty cycle.

Ther are no LEDs made that have a spec that declares that they
should not be on all the time.

Most have several thousand hours of operating life when driven
properly.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

These are targeted towards a market segment where they would likely
see much less than 100 hours.


You're a dope... a BIG DOPE.

Why do you always pull **** out of your ass like that?

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

I suspect that on the display board they were
actually seeing a bit less voltage than it normally would installed, and
under allot better conditions. It's just that 12 hours per day operation in
a static display is an outrageously heavier than normal duty cycle.


Wrong. LEDs are CURRENT driven devices, and the display was most
likely being driven with too much current.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:02:15 -0500, John Fields
Gave us:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:02:11 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

What color is a chameleon looking in a mirror?

---
Probably the color of its reflected background.

How to confuse a chameleon?

Put one on the Sunday funnies.


Silly Putty!

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

These are targeted towards a market segment where they would likely
see much less than 100 hours.


You're a dope... a BIG DOPE.

Why do you always pull **** out of your ass like that?

You obviously know nothing about most "bikers". They don't ride. Just go
down to the local HD dealer and look at the used bikes. Check the odometer,
you'll freak. Many many many bikes never see 500 miles/year. I don't just
pull this stuff out of my ass, it comes from actual experience. What
experience do you have with bikes, real bikers and RUBs?

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

I suspect that on the display board they were
actually seeing a bit less voltage than it normally would installed,
and under allot better conditions. It's just that 12 hours per day
operation in a static display is an outrageously heavier than normal
duty cycle.


Wrong. LEDs are CURRENT driven devices, and the display was most
likely being driven with too much current.

I know that, but LED modules in vehicles already contain the current
limiting resistors. They are voltage operated devices at that point, now
aren't they? Do you really think that JF doesn't know this?

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly
manufacturer is the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are
not used continuously, but are for looking cool while the bike is
parked outside the bar for a couple hours.


All LEDs driven properly are meant for 100% full time duty cycle.

You should take a look at your remote control then. Now are they
1) not driving it properly or
2) is 100% duty cycle going to work ok

Ther are no LEDs made that have a spec that declares that they
should not be on all the time.

Please refer to this datasheet:
http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/hp/HLMP-6755.pdf

What do they mean by "DC Forward Current", "Peak Forward Current" and
"Transient Forward Current" then? It's called pulsed operation, IOW it is
"a spec that declares that they should not be on all the time". Now isn't
it?

Most have several thousand hours of operating life when driven
properly.

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I seriously doubt whether the LED manufacturers are the weak link in
the chain. If it exists at all, I suggest that it's somewhere down
the chain where the unscrupulous are trying to trim the
dollars-per-lumen bottom line by overdriving fewer than the number
of LEDs required to generate the desired light level reliably.

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly manufacturer is
the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are not used continuously, but
are for looking cool while the bike is parked outside the bar for a couple
hours. These are targeted towards a market segment where they would likely
see much less than 100 hours. I suspect that on the display board they were
actually seeing a bit less voltage than it normally would installed, and
under allot better conditions. It's just that 12 hours per day operation in
a static display is an outrageously heavier than normal duty cycle.

---
I missed those last two sentences earlier.

If they were seeing a bit less voltage than normal then there's no
way their forward current could increase to the point where the
lifetime of the lamp would decrease. Other than reverse bias
failures, what causes LEDs to die is high junction temperatures, and
that comes about by forcing more current into them than they're
designed for. And that's caused by increasing the voltage across
them, not decreasing it.

Also, in other than high-power pulsed service, LEDs are designed to
be operated continuously. The example you cited in another post is
for high power operation.

Consider: If that weren't true, then the POWER ON LED on a device
designed to be ON 24/7 would have to be turned off every once in a
while, and that's just silly.


--
JF

John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I seriously doubt whether the LED manufacturers are the weak link in
the chain. If it exists at all, I suggest that it's somewhere down
the chain where the unscrupulous are trying to trim the
dollars-per-lumen bottom line by overdriving fewer than the number
of LEDs required to generate the desired light level reliably.

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly
manufacturer is the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are
not used continuously, but are for looking cool while the bike is
parked outside the bar for a couple hours. These are targeted
towards a market segment where they would likely see much less than
100 hours. I suspect that on the display board they were actually
seeing a bit less voltage than it normally would installed, and
under allot better conditions. It's just that 12 hours per day
operation in a static display is an outrageously heavier than normal
duty cycle.

---
I missed those last two sentences earlier.

If they were seeing a bit less voltage than normal then there's no
way their forward current could increase to the point where the
lifetime of the lamp would decrease. Other than reverse bias
failures, what causes LEDs to die is high junction temperatures, and
that comes about by forcing more current into them than they're
designed for. And that's caused by increasing the voltage across
them, not decreasing it.

I agree, and to put it simply that's all I've been saying. The maker of
these lamp assemblies is allowing them to be over driven for whatever reason
(brighter, planned obsolescence, chinese manufacturer subbed parts, who
knows). ;-)

Also, in other than high-power pulsed service, LEDs are designed to
be operated continuously. The example you cited in another post is
for high power operation.

I know that, but that was to refute this ridiculous claim:

"Ther are no LEDs made that have a spec that declares that they should not
be on all the time." (sic)

Consider: If that weren't true, then the POWER ON LED on a device
designed to be ON 24/7 would have to be turned off every once in a
while, and that's just silly.

To echo your earlier statement, well duh. ;-) I will say that I have seen
commercial products that had power LEDs that dimmed over time. This seems
to indicate that it was likely being driven a tad harder than it liked (and
most certainly harder than was necessary).

On a slightly different tangent: Maybe it's just me, but the little hairs
stand up on my neck every time someone suggests driving LEDs with 20 or 25mA
to a noobie. Almost all LEDs that anyone is likely to encounter today will
illuminate quite well with 5mA and will most certainly last allot longer.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 08:48:31 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

On a slightly different tangent: Maybe it's just me, but the little hairs
stand up on my neck every time someone suggests driving LEDs with 20 or 25mA
to a noobie. Almost all LEDs that anyone is likely to encounter today will
illuminate quite well with 5mA and will most certainly last allot longer.

---
If the manufacturer's recommended operating conditions suggest
running the device at 20mA, Then I'll certainly go along with their
recommendation, and will echo that recommendation to newbies. But I
don't use 20mA lamps, I use the Avago (HP) HLMP-4700, HLMP-1700, and
HLMP-7000 series of 2mA lamps.


--
JF

MassiveProng wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:02:11 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:

They were probably rushed out
to meet the need for a low profile fixture to suit styling needs with
little regard for lamp life.

Tail/brake light assemblies are no smaller than they ever were. If
anything, many are bigger and ALL have DOT standards to conform to,
dumbass.

Many center brake light assemblies consist of a single row of LEDs. This
is done primarily to keep them thin and easy to integrate into body
styles.

Do you guess at everything you come up with?

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.
- Bart Simpson

MassiveProng wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:51:48 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:

Not very impressive in one respect: I can see my news reader on a 12"
diagonal laptop just fine. Large screens are quite useful for multiple
application windows, but I fail to see the need to expand one across the
entire screen. Unless your eyesight is failing and you need big fonts.

Didn't your mom tell you doing that would make you go blind?

Your stupidity is what is not very impressive, dip****.

More than computer display services end up on wide form factor HDTV
monitors, idiot!

Of course, TV. How silly of me to overlook your primary form of
entertainment. The resolution of an HDTV monitor is too low for most
computing applications.

Seems you never did look up what HDMI stands for. Figures... still
miles behind the rest, as you always will be with your retarded
attitude.

High Definition Multimedia Interface. Its basically another version of
DVI, but with DRM. It really offers no additional capabilities unless
spending your entire life in front of TeeVee is important to you.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrigible punster -- Do not incorrige.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 05:04:11 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

These are targeted towards a market segment where they would likely
see much less than 100 hours.


You're a dope... a BIG DOPE.

Why do you always pull **** out of your ass like that?

You obviously know nothing about most "bikers". They don't ride. Just go
down to the local HD dealer and look at the used bikes. Check the odometer,
you'll freak. Many many many bikes never see 500 miles/year. I don't just
pull this stuff out of my ass, it comes from actual experience. What
experience do you have with bikes, real bikers and RUBs?

Dude... I live in Oceanside, CA. People here DO ride their bikes,
and their are bike shops and chopper shop all up and down the coast
highway.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 05:14:15 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly
manufacturer is the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are
not used continuously, but are for looking cool while the bike is
parked outside the bar for a couple hours.


All LEDs driven properly are meant for 100% full time duty cycle.

You should take a look at your remote control then. Now are they
1) not driving it properly or
2) is 100% duty cycle going to work ok

Ther are no LEDs made that have a spec that declares that they
should not be on all the time.

Please refer to this datasheet:
http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/hp/HLMP-6755.pdf

What do they mean by "DC Forward Current", "Peak Forward Current" and
"Transient Forward Current" then? It's called pulsed operation, IOW it is
"a spec that declares that they should not be on all the time". Now isn't
it?


Absolutely not. Note the spec declaration that all reading are at a
max of 25C. As long as that temperature is not exceeded, the unit can
be operated at 100% duty.

I saw NOTHING in the spec stating otherwise.

Most have several thousand hours of operating life when driven
properly.

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

But what you are saying is something that has no basis in fact.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:36:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:


Of course, TV. How silly of me to overlook your primary form of
entertainment. The resolution of an HDTV monitor is too low for most
computing applications.


WRONG!

My HDTV is native at 1360x765!

My PC Graphics card drives it at that rate, and it looks awesome!

FOR ALL computing applications.

You are living in the past when putting out to a standard TV was
done at 640x480 or 800x600. onto an NTSC Std definition CRT!

You need to belly up to the bar of modern technology, boy.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:36:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:

High Definition Multimedia Interface. Its basically another version of
DVI, but with DRM. It really offers no additional capabilities unless
spending your entire life in front of TeeVee is important to you.


You're an idiot.

It is what keeps the pirate ****tards from getting HD resolution
copies of HD media, dumbass. As well it should.

You want to jump on DRM, jump on Sony with their rootkit crap.
Otherwise STFU, because you have no clue.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 05:14:15 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:52:26 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Exactly, not the LED manufacturer, but the light assembly
manufacturer is the one that I blame. Normally, these lights are
not used continuously, but are for looking cool while the bike is
parked outside the bar for a couple hours.


All LEDs driven properly are meant for 100% full time duty cycle.

You should take a look at your remote control then. Now are they
1) not driving it properly or
2) is 100% duty cycle going to work ok

Ther are no LEDs made that have a spec that declares that they
should not be on all the time.

Please refer to this datasheet:
http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/hp/HLMP-6755.pdf

What do they mean by "DC Forward Current", "Peak Forward Current" and
"Transient Forward Current" then? It's called pulsed operation, IOW
it is "a spec that declares that they should not be on all the
time". Now isn't it?


Absolutely not. Note the spec declaration that all reading are at a
max of 25C. As long as that temperature is not exceeded, the unit can
be operated at 100% duty.

I saw NOTHING in the spec stating otherwise.

Look again. Please refer to Figure 6 (Maximum Tolerable Peak Current vs.
Pulse Duration) It goes without saying, that you can't keep Tj at 25C once
you turn it on.

Most have several thousand hours of operating life when driven
properly.

Nobody is disagreeing with that.

But what you are saying is something that has no basis in fact.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 05:04:11 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
You obviously know nothing about most "bikers". They don't ride.
Just go down to the local HD dealer and look at the used bikes.
Check the odometer, you'll freak. Many many many bikes never see
500 miles/year. I don't just pull this stuff out of my ass, it
comes from actual experience. What experience do you have with
bikes, real bikers and RUBs?

Dude... I live in Oceanside, CA. People here DO ride their bikes,
and their are bike shops and chopper shop all up and down the coast
highway.

Like I said, go to the shop and look at used bike mileage. Your part of the
country is not immune. ;-) Sure some people do ride allot, but I'm
serious, check the internet. I've seen tons of 3 year old bikes that had
1,000 miles on them.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:18:28 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

MassiveProng wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 05:04:11 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
You obviously know nothing about most "bikers". They don't ride.
Just go down to the local HD dealer and look at the used bikes.
Check the odometer, you'll freak. Many many many bikes never see
500 miles/year. I don't just pull this stuff out of my ass, it
comes from actual experience. What experience do you have with
bikes, real bikers and RUBs?

Dude... I live in Oceanside, CA. People here DO ride their bikes,
and their are bike shops and chopper shop all up and down the coast
highway.

Like I said, go to the shop and look at used bike mileage. Your part of the
country is not immune. ;-) Sure some people do ride allot, but I'm
serious, check the internet. I've seen tons of 3 year old bikes that had
1,000 miles on them.

There are ten Harleys parked outside of just ONE of six buildings in
our complex, and they ride EVERY day.

There are a hundred that ride bikes to work every day, and every
lunch hour.

My part of the country doesn't need to be immune, they are "riders".
Period.

On 2007-04-10, Anthony Fremont wrote:

Sure some people do ride allot, but I'm
serious, check the internet. I've seen tons of 3 year old bikes that had
1,000 miles on them.

Gee, I wonder why they're selling!




--

Bye.
Jasen

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:14:24 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Look again. Please refer to Figure 6 (Maximum Tolerable Peak Current vs.
Pulse Duration) It goes without saying, that you can't keep Tj at 25C once
you turn it on.


Max Tolerable is NOT the recommended operating current for 100%
duty.

Nearly ALL visible spectrum LEDs are meant to be ON ALL the time
without detriment to lifespan. I would actually bet that it IS ALL.

They are meant to be used as indicators, whether in a panel, or on
the rear of a car.

It is silly to think otherwise. Their original purpose was as a
replacement for panel lamps, and as a replacement for digit segments
in gas numeric digital displays. Among many other applications.

High brightness LEDs are just now coming into being, and had to have
many years of field level testing to iron out deficiencies in physical
design and packaging as well as chemical makeup. In those cases, a
less than 100% duty rate MIGHT be a particular of a given makers' spec
on a device. Not likely though since they are fighting to win a
particular market that IS 100% duty rate. It matters not how long
some biker "typically" leaves his "gang boy" lights on his bike
running.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:14:24 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Look again. Please refer to Figure 6 (Maximum Tolerable Peak
Current vs. Pulse Duration) It goes without saying, that you can't
keep Tj at 25C once you turn it on.


Max Tolerable is NOT the recommended operating current for 100%
duty.

Well duh. I was just showing you that there truly is a spec stated for a
duty cycle less than 100%.

Nearly ALL visible spectrum LEDs are meant to be ON ALL the time
without detriment to lifespan. I would actually bet that it IS ALL.

They are meant to be used as indicators, whether in a panel, or on
the rear of a car.

It is silly to think otherwise. Their original purpose was as a
replacement for panel lamps, and as a replacement for digit segments
in gas numeric digital displays. Among many other applications.

I never said that there were LEDs that couldn't be operated 100% duty cycle.
I imagine that they all will take it as long as current is low enough. I am
saying that many LEDs are manufactured with the forethought that the end
user may be overdriving them for short times. That's why they come up with
pulse specs.

High brightness LEDs are just now coming into being, and had to have
many years of field level testing to iron out deficiencies in physical
design and packaging as well as chemical makeup. In those cases, a
less than 100% duty rate MIGHT be a particular of a given makers' spec
on a device. Not likely though since they are fighting to win a
particular market that IS 100% duty rate. It matters not how long
some biker "typically" leaves his "gang boy" lights on his bike
running.

It's not the LED that is to blame on these failures. It is the lamp
assembly manufacturer that couldn't resist driving them just a little harder
than necessary. Otherwise they wouldn't dim/burn out like that.

I would never insinuate that the pulse spec duty cycle could be extrapolated
to hours of length. I'm just saying that the lights I saw on display at the
shop were being driven too hard from something. Chances are that the
display was only being driven by 12V. Just imagine how long they would last
in a vehicle seeing 14V all the time.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:55:30 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


Well duh. I was just showing you that there truly is a spec stated for a
duty cycle less than 100%.

No, it is stated for dopes that think they can get away with pushing
an LED hot.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:55:30 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

It's not the LED that is to blame on these failures. It is the lamp
assembly manufacturer that couldn't resist driving them just a little harder
than necessary. Otherwise they wouldn't dim/burn out like that.


No ****.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:55:30 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Chances are that the
display was only being driven by 12V. Just imagine how long they would last
in a vehicle seeing 14V all the time.

If the drive circuit was designed properly, they should be able to be
the same brightness for a voltage range of say 7 to 16 volts. That
would be what a good designer would build anyway. A regulated front
end on the circuit would be required to achieve any repeatability with
the final product.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:55:30 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:


Well duh. I was just showing you that there truly is a spec stated
for a duty cycle less than 100%.

No, it is stated for dopes that think they can get away with pushing
an LED hot.

Not as dopey as thinking that a _lit_ LED has a Tj anywhere near 25C under
anything that remotely resembles normal conditions.

MassiveProng wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:55:30 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

It's not the LED that is to blame on these failures. It is the lamp
assembly manufacturer that couldn't resist driving them just a
little harder than necessary. Otherwise they wouldn't dim/burn out
like that.


No ****.

Well then, what are you arguing about?

MassiveProng wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 04:55:30 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
Gave us:

Chances are that the
display was only being driven by 12V. Just imagine how long they
would last in a vehicle seeing 14V all the time.

If the drive circuit was designed properly, they should be able to be
the same brightness for a voltage range of say 7 to 16 volts. That
would be what a good designer would build anyway. A regulated front
end on the circuit would be required to achieve any repeatability with
the final product.

Since we're already here and everything, can you show me a schematic of how
to do that? No fair if others help. :-] I fully imagine that the
manufacturers drive circuit consists primarily of a resistor. I haven't
checked, but I'm not paying $20 for four LEDs in a cute chrome housing to
find out.

I have trouble choosing things, so I have a project using tri-color LEDs for
the back lighting. I'm fairly sure that I'm in violation of numerous
patents by now, but I came up with my ideas a few years back when people
were still shelling out $1000 to have their bike done in a single color at a
rally. Homey don't play that, that's ridiculous pricing.

It's still too expensive for kit stuff, just look at these prices:
http://www.chromeglow.com/store.asp?pid=14445

I also did a replacement self-canceling turn-signal controller that
(optionally) strobes the lamps for maximum visibility. As a side effect of
doing it right (;-) it is also load independant and short-circuit proof.
Automotive high-side drivers are cool parts, even if their pin-outs suck. I
did that project because a factory replacement module is almost $100, screw
that...PIC chips are cheap. Necessity is truly the mother of invention.
;-)