"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:19:58 -0000, gregz wrote:

Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:57 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:03:19 -0000, Clark W. Griswold
wrote:

On 12/19/2018 11:36 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:18:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 12/19/18 5:23 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
Do switch mode power supplies flicker in time with mains?
Specifically
LED power supplies in commercially available domestic lamps. By
in
time, I don't mean at the same 50/60Hz, but anchored to it.
I.e.
if
you
have several such lamps each with their own built in supply,
will
they
all flicker in time, using the mains frequency to keep them in
time, or
will they be random, making the room overall not flicker due to
them all
being random? And is there any way I can test this? I tried
taking
photos of them, but my camera only goes as fast as 1/2000th of
a
second,
which shows all the lights at the same brightness each time, I
suspect
the flicker is above 2000Hz.

I once had an audio amplifier with a solar cell rather than a
microphone
for the input transducer. This made it possible to listen to
light.
The
sun is steady, incandescent lights (AC powered) hum.

That was 40 years ago. Maybe something like that would work
today.

The trouble is I want to compare 2kHz+ from one light with 2kHz+
from
a neighbouring light and see if they're in sync.

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

Since this landed in alt.home.repair, I gotta ask. Do you have
single-phase or two-phase?

Single. I'm in the UK.
so 50 Htz - you can almost see an incandescent flicker at that
frequency (at 25 you could)

(also rules out the previously mentioned "engineer friend")

Lights flicker at twice the frequency, once for positive cycle, and
once
for negative cycle. LEDs only once unles using a bridge rectifier, or
steady on using DC. Even though blinking they look normal straight
on,
my
brain says something is wrong

Some brains (or eyes) seem to be faster than others. I can easily
(and
annoyingly) see flicker on CRT monitors below 90Hz, others don't even
see
the 50 or 60Hz ones. I can see flicker on 80% of car LED lights,
others
don't see any. Designers really ought to account for those of us with
better eyesight.

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as good
as
mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes around the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked) wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has a high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight, I can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with striving for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner �笛
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:34:35 -0800 (PST), LO AND BEHOLD; trader_4
determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 7:51:32 AM UTC-5,
William Gothberg
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ wrote:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:31:31 -0000, Clare
Snyder
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ wrote:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:03:19
-0500, "Clark W. Griswold"
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
wrote:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ On 12/19/2018 11:36
AM, William Gothberg wrote:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ On
Wed, 19
Dec 2018 16:18:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd wrote:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ On 12/19/18 5:23 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ Do switch mode power supplies flicker in time
with mains?Â* Specifically
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ LED power supplies in commercially available
domestic lamps. By in time,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ I don't mean at the same 50/60Hz, but
anchored
to it. I.e. if you have
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ several such lamps each with their own built
in supply, will they all
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ flicker in time, using the mains frequency to
keep them in time, or
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ will they be random, making the room overall
not flicker due to them
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ all being random?Â* And is there any way I can
test this?Â* I tried
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ taking photos of them, but my camera only
goes
as fast as 1/2000th of a
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ second, which shows all the lights at the
same
brightness each time, I
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ suspect the flicker is above 2000Hz.
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ I once had an audio amplifier with a solar cell rather
than a microphone
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ for the input transducer. This made it possible to listen
to light. The
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ sun is steady, incandescent lights (AC powered) hum. That
was 40 years
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ ago. Maybe something like that would work today.
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ The
trouble is I want to compare 2kHz+ from one light with 2kHz+ from a
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
neighbouring light and see if they're in sync.
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ Maybe use a dual
trace
oscilloscope? Since this landed in
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ alt.home.repair, I
gotta ask.Â* Do you have single-phase or two-phase?
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ No such thing as "2 phase" -
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ Perhaps he meant split phase, like in the USA
- centre tapped 240V.
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ Which could conceivably mean I could have
some
lights on each circuit,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ and if they were fed by half wave
rectification, flickering at 50Hz,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ they could be out of time with each other and
make the whole room
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ flicker at 100Hz, filling in each other's
gaps.Â* Mind you the same can
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ happen by just putting the bulb in the other
way (in the UK bayonet cap
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ fittings allow you to connect live/neutral
the
other way at random with
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ bulbs).
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ They won't be out of time with each other as each circuit
is reaching
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time.Â* That's how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 13:55:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Sadly, there's no light flickering AT ALL in your heads, you two prize
idiots!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 13:53:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

Let's face it: BOTH of you are FREAKS, the one is a senile sociopathic freak
and the other one a puerile sociopathic freak.

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner �笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time. That's how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner �笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time.Â* That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching around
like now

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:55:55 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes around the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked) wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has a high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight, I can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with striving for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Agreed, and the other half do.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half agreed it was irritating.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner �笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time. That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching around
like now

No that's the drugs.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:19:58 -0000, gregz wrote:

Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:57 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:03:19 -0000, Clark W. Griswold
wrote:

On 12/19/2018 11:36 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:18:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 12/19/18 5:23 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
Do switch mode power supplies flicker in time with mains?
Specifically
LED power supplies in commercially available domestic lamps. By
in
time, I don't mean at the same 50/60Hz, but anchored to it.
I.e.
if
you
have several such lamps each with their own built in supply,
will
they
all flicker in time, using the mains frequency to keep them in
time, or
will they be random, making the room overall not flicker due to
them all
being random? And is there any way I can test this? I tried
taking
photos of them, but my camera only goes as fast as 1/2000th of
a
second,
which shows all the lights at the same brightness each time, I
suspect
the flicker is above 2000Hz.

I once had an audio amplifier with a solar cell rather than a
microphone
for the input transducer. This made it possible to listen to
light.
The
sun is steady, incandescent lights (AC powered) hum.

That was 40 years ago. Maybe something like that would work
today.

The trouble is I want to compare 2kHz+ from one light with 2kHz+
from
a neighbouring light and see if they're in sync.

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

Since this landed in alt.home.repair, I gotta ask. Do you have
single-phase or two-phase?

Single. I'm in the UK.
so 50 Htz - you can almost see an incandescent flicker at that
frequency (at 25 you could)

(also rules out the previously mentioned "engineer friend")

Lights flicker at twice the frequency, once for positive cycle, and
once
for negative cycle. LEDs only once unles using a bridge rectifier, or
steady on using DC. Even though blinking they look normal straight
on,
my
brain says something is wrong

Some brains (or eyes) seem to be faster than others. I can easily
(and
annoyingly) see flicker on CRT monitors below 90Hz, others don't even
see
the 50 or 60Hz ones. I can see flicker on 80% of car LED lights,
others
don't see any. Designers really ought to account for those of us with
better eyesight.

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly, at a lower frame rate.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as good
as
mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering. Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

On 2018-12-22 1:55 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner
�笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time.Â* That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching around
like now

No that's the drugs.

leave them alone then if they're fk'ing you

"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
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder

wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes around
the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked)
wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has a
high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight, I
can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who
needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with striving
for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Agreed, and the other half do.

Bull**** they do.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:19:58 -0000, gregz wrote:

Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:57 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:03:19 -0000, Clark W. Griswold
wrote:

On 12/19/2018 11:36 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:18:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd

wrote:

On 12/19/18 5:23 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
Do switch mode power supplies flicker in time with mains?
Specifically
LED power supplies in commercially available domestic lamps.
By
in
time, I don't mean at the same 50/60Hz, but anchored to it.
I.e.
if
you
have several such lamps each with their own built in supply,
will
they
all flicker in time, using the mains frequency to keep them
in
time, or
will they be random, making the room overall not flicker due
to
them all
being random? And is there any way I can test this? I tried
taking
photos of them, but my camera only goes as fast as 1/2000th
of
a
second,
which shows all the lights at the same brightness each time,
I
suspect
the flicker is above 2000Hz.

I once had an audio amplifier with a solar cell rather than a
microphone
for the input transducer. This made it possible to listen to
light.
The
sun is steady, incandescent lights (AC powered) hum.

That was 40 years ago. Maybe something like that would work
today.

The trouble is I want to compare 2kHz+ from one light with
2kHz+
from
a neighbouring light and see if they're in sync.

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

Since this landed in alt.home.repair, I gotta ask. Do you have
single-phase or two-phase?

Single. I'm in the UK.
so 50 Htz - you can almost see an incandescent flicker at that
frequency (at 25 you could)

(also rules out the previously mentioned "engineer friend")

Lights flicker at twice the frequency, once for positive cycle, and
once
for negative cycle. LEDs only once unles using a bridge rectifier,
or
steady on using DC. Even though blinking they look normal straight
on,
my
brain says something is wrong

Some brains (or eyes) seem to be faster than others. I can easily
(and
annoyingly) see flicker on CRT monitors below 90Hz, others don't
even
see
the 50 or 60Hz ones. I can see flicker on 80% of car LED lights,
others
don't see any. Designers really ought to account for those of us
with
better eyesight.

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't see
either.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as good
as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:19:58 -0000, gregz wrote:

Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:57 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:03:19 -0000, Clark W. Griswold
wrote:

On 12/19/2018 11:36 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:18:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd

wrote:

On 12/19/18 5:23 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
Do switch mode power supplies flicker in time with mains?
Specifically
LED power supplies in commercially available domestic lamps.
By
in
time, I don't mean at the same 50/60Hz, but anchored to it.
I.e.
if
you
have several such lamps each with their own built in supply,
will
they
all flicker in time, using the mains frequency to keep them
in
time, or
will they be random, making the room overall not flicker due
to
them all
being random? And is there any way I can test this? I tried
taking
photos of them, but my camera only goes as fast as 1/2000th
of
a
second,
which shows all the lights at the same brightness each time,
I
suspect
the flicker is above 2000Hz.

I once had an audio amplifier with a solar cell rather than a
microphone
for the input transducer. This made it possible to listen to
light.
The
sun is steady, incandescent lights (AC powered) hum.

That was 40 years ago. Maybe something like that would work
today.

The trouble is I want to compare 2kHz+ from one light with
2kHz+
from
a neighbouring light and see if they're in sync.

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

Since this landed in alt.home.repair, I gotta ask. Do you have
single-phase or two-phase?

Single. I'm in the UK.
so 50 Htz - you can almost see an incandescent flicker at that
frequency (at 25 you could)

(also rules out the previously mentioned "engineer friend")

Lights flicker at twice the frequency, once for positive cycle, and
once
for negative cycle. LEDs only once unles using a bridge rectifier,
or
steady on using DC. Even though blinking they look normal straight
on,
my
brain says something is wrong

Some brains (or eyes) seem to be faster than others. I can easily
(and
annoyingly) see flicker on CRT monitors below 90Hz, others don't
even
see
the 50 or 60Hz ones. I can see flicker on 80% of car LED lights,
others
don't see any. Designers really ought to account for those of us
with
better eyesight.

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate. Easily measured.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't see
either.

I see more than you do. Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as good
as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there. What other things are you missing in life?

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate, they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each illumination. Same is done now with LCDs. Only cheap rubbish TVs and monitors don't match the phosphor timing with the scan timing.

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 On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder

wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes around
the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked)
wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has a
high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight, I
can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who
needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with striving
for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Agreed, and the other half do.

Bull**** they do.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni, I know what an adequate sample is.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:04:56 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:55 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner
�笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time. That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching around
like now

No that's the drugs.

leave them alone then if they're fk'ing you

The positives outweigh the negatives.

On 2018-12-22 3:24 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:04:56 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:55 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner
�笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time.Â* That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching
around
like now

No that's the drugs.

leave them alone then if they're fk'ing you

The positives outweigh the negatives.

i'm not a weight watcher

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:35:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 3:24 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:04:56 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:55 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner
�笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time. That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching
around
like now

No that's the drugs.

leave them alone then if they're fk'ing you

The positives outweigh the negatives.

i'm not a weight watcher

Weight is irrelevant, although smoking does lower your weight.

On 2018-12-22 3:45 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:35:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 3:24 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:04:56 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:55 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's
Owner
�笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time.Â* That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching
around
like now

No that's the drugs.

leave them alone then if they're fk'ing you

The positives outweigh the negatives.

i'm not a weight watcher

Weight is irrelevant, although smoking does lower your weight.

if it's irrelevant why did you say it

"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:19:58 -0000, gregz
wrote:

Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:34:57 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:03:19 -0000, Clark W. Griswold
wrote:

On 12/19/2018 11:36 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:18:29 -0000, Mark Lloyd

wrote:

On 12/19/18 5:23 AM, William Gothberg wrote:
Do switch mode power supplies flicker in time with mains?
Specifically
LED power supplies in commercially available domestic
lamps.
By
in
time, I don't mean at the same 50/60Hz, but anchored to it.
I.e.
if
you
have several such lamps each with their own built in
supply,
will
they
all flicker in time, using the mains frequency to keep them
in
time, or
will they be random, making the room overall not flicker
due
to
them all
being random? And is there any way I can test this? I
tried
taking
photos of them, but my camera only goes as fast as 1/2000th
of
a
second,
which shows all the lights at the same brightness each
time,
I
suspect
the flicker is above 2000Hz.

I once had an audio amplifier with a solar cell rather than
a
microphone
for the input transducer. This made it possible to listen to
light.
The
sun is steady, incandescent lights (AC powered) hum.

That was 40 years ago. Maybe something like that would work
today.

The trouble is I want to compare 2kHz+ from one light with
2kHz+
from
a neighbouring light and see if they're in sync.

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

Since this landed in alt.home.repair, I gotta ask. Do you
have
single-phase or two-phase?

Single. I'm in the UK.
so 50 Htz - you can almost see an incandescent flicker at that
frequency (at 25 you could)

(also rules out the previously mentioned "engineer friend")

Lights flicker at twice the frequency, once for positive cycle,
and
once
for negative cycle. LEDs only once unles using a bridge
rectifier,
or
steady on using DC. Even though blinking they look normal
straight
on,
my
brain says something is wrong

Some brains (or eyes) seem to be faster than others. I can easily
(and
annoyingly) see flicker on CRT monitors below 90Hz, others don't
even
see
the 50 or 60Hz ones. I can see flicker on 80% of car LED lights,
others
don't see any. Designers really ought to account for those of us
with
better eyesight.

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Easily measured.

Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't see
either.

I see more than you do.

And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.

Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as
good as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there.

Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.

Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.

Only cheap rubbish TVs and monitors don't match the phosphor timing with
the scan timing.

Pity about movies in movie theaters, car lights etc etc etc.

"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 On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder

wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong
way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under
fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes around
the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked)
wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has a
high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS
standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just
be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight, I
can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who
needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with striving
for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like
LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk
take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two
specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Agreed, and the other half do.

Bull**** they do.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

If half could actually see car lights flicker, the
designers wouldn't have designed them like that.

In spades with movies in movie theaters. That frame
rate was chosen because most couldn't see that flicker.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:18:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The technical term for that

The technical term for the two of you is "sick trolling assholes"!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 08:27:05 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 171 lines of the two prize idiots' absolutely idiotic
bull**** unread again


--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rot:

Senile Rot: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rot: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

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 On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder

wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg" "William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong
way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under
fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes around
the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked)
wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has a
high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS
standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just
be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight, I
can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who
needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with striving
for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like
LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk
take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two
specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Agreed, and the other half do.

Bull**** they do.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

Well I understand this, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample...pothesis_tests

To make it easier for you:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

For example, with the world population of 7.5 billion, to be 90% sure you only have an error margin of 10%, you only need 63 people in your sample.

If half could actually see car lights flicker, the
designers wouldn't have designed them like that.

Economy.

In spades with movies in movie theaters. That frame
rate was chosen because most couldn't see that flicker.

Not the same thing. 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. Movie theatres (you mean cinemas, theatres are for plays, they have a stage, you're talking American) don't illuminate the screen with LEDs. Why do you think Panasonic made a 100Hz TV? Why do you think Iiyama made 90Hz monitors?

"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 On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:07:42 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 19:25:49 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 04:27:41 -0000, Clare Snyder

wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:39:50 -0000, "William Gothberg"
"William
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:34:11 -0000, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 16:21:43 UTC, Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On 12/19/18 6:01 AM, William Gothberg wrote:

[snip]

They probably are fairly crude. I know they flicker, for
example
if
I
use my cordless drill, the chuck appears to spin the wrong
way
under
the
LED lighting.
I remember seeing that with a washing machine (under
fluorescent
lights). As the tub was slowing down, the row of holes
around
the
tub
would appear to reverse direction. Same thing with (spoked)
wagon
wheels
in movies.

You can also observe such things using a smartphone that has
a
high
FPS
rate for recodring movie.
I can see the labs lights flicker when I film at 240FPS
standard
60
and everything seems fine.

Everybody seems to constantly cut corners. Lights should just
be
on,
no
flicker at all. ****ing annoying if you have decent eyesight,
I
can
see
the flicker from almost everyone's LED tail lights.


This is sounding more and more like our "engineer friend" who
needs
to do his own tire repairs and alignments and clutch repairs.

Don't know who you're referring to, but what's wrong with
striving
for
perfection?

It increases costs for everyone who isnt a freak.

There's perfection and there's perfection. You for example like
LEDs
you
can control the colour of, nothing wrong with that. But OCD folk
take
things too far, like washing their car every day because of two
specks
of
dust.

All irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to design
all car lights so that no freak ever sees any flicker at all.

When "freak" is half the population,

Half the population don't see car lights flicker.

Agreed, and the other half do.

Bull**** they do.

you need to account for them.

Nope.

If you think they're a minority,

I know there are.

why does google have 4.5 million results for the car light flicker?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half
agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

Well I understand this,

No you do not.

do you?

Corse I do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample...pothesis_tests

To make it easier for you:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

For example, with the world population of 7.5 billion, to be 90% sure you
only have an error margin of 10%, you only need 63 people in your sample.

So yours is clearly a pathetically inadequate sample.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 10:01:40 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two prize idiots' endless idiotic bull**** unread again

--
Another typical retarded conversation between our two village idiots,
Birdbrain and Rot Speed:

Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring."

Senile Rot: "Then **** the cats. That wont be boring."

Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first."

Senile Rot: "Wont help with the teeth."

Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths."

Rot Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try ****ing them."

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

Rot Speed: "They wont if you try ****ing them. Try it and see."

Message-ID:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 09:58:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more troll****

You STILL haven't learned your lesson, you filthy senile 85-year-old cretin?
OK, I'm going to teach you yet some more how one deals with trolling scum
like you! LOL

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

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?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half
agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

Well I understand this,

No you do not.

How can you possibly know if I don't?

do you?

Corse I do.

Don't believe you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample...pothesis_tests

To make it easier for you:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

For example, with the world population of 7.5 billion, to be 90% sure you
only have an error margin of 10%, you only need 63 people in your sample.

So yours is clearly a pathetically inadequate sample.

It's half of what's required for the above accuracy. I don't need that much accuracy. Even if I was 20% out, then saying that 50% of people can see flicker means that 40% can. 40% is a big enough part of the population to cater for.

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.

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.

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.
Look it up. Only American English confuses the terms.

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.

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. Perhaps you should ditch your sense of smell, because smelling things you don't like is annoying. 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. And it was proven that low frequency ones cause headaches and eye damage for people using them all day in offices.

"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?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half
agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

Well I understand this,

No you do not.

How can you possibly know if I don't?

From that stupid claim of yours above.

do you?

Corse I do.

Don't believe you.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to believe in spades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample...pothesis_tests

To make it easier for you:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

For example, with the world population of 7.5 billion, to be 90% sure
you
only have an error margin of 10%, you only need 63 people in your
sample.

So yours is clearly a pathetically inadequate sample.

It's half of what's required for the above accuracy. I don't need that
much accuracy. Even if I was 20% out, then saying that 50% of people can
see flicker means that 40% can. 40% is a big enough part of the
population to cater for.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you don't in fact have a ****ing
clue about even the most basic statistics.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And it was proven that low frequency ones cause headaches and eye damage
for people using them all day in offices.

Bull****.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:58:52 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Precisely what I said, with a different name.

Easily measured.

Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

You need to take the most sensitive part, as when driving any part of it could see someone's lights.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't see
either.

I see more than you do.

And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.

I prefer to see reality than something your brain made up.

Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely. A faster camera and a faster eye can see much better. They also see flicker where the cheap **** cameras and your faulty eyes can't.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as
good as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there.

Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.

they should be made properly. A TV should have a phosphor (or equivalent for LEDs) decay rate long enough to stay on until the next frame.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing. Your eyes/brain are assuming things look the same, when in fact they've changed.

In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.

Only the cheap ones **** me off. There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

Well they must have done something, because they looked way less flickery than a cheap 60Hz monitor.

they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.

Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.

What's the actual name for it? Because when I google persistence, I get things referring to screen burn.

..

merry christmas , fat head

"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:58:52 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Precisely what I said,

Nope, there is no equivalent of a frame rate
with eyes. You don't get any reversal of the
rotation direction as you change the rotation
rate with eyes so there is no frame rate.

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

You need to take the most sensitive part, as when driving any part of it
could see someone's lights.

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't
see
either.

I see more than you do.

And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

Nope, eyes don't have a frame rate. Trivial to
prove by observing that the rotation direction
never changes as the rotation speed is changed.

A faster camera and a faster eye can see much better.

Much worse in fact with car lights.

They also see flicker where the cheap **** cameras and your faulty eyes
can't.

Yours are the faulty eyes that see
flicker where no one else does.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as
good as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there.

Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

A TV should have a phosphor (or equivalent for LEDs)

There is no equivalent for leds.

decay rate long enough to stay on until the next frame.

Problem is that produces smear with fast moving bits of images.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

Your eyes/brain are assuming things look the same, when in fact they've
changed.

So I don't see flicker with car lights. Great.

In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

Your problem, as always. None **** me off.

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

Well they must have done something, because they looked way less flickery
than a cheap 60Hz monitor.

they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.

Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

Because when I google persistence, I get things referring to screen burn.

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 04:38:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 189 of absolutely idiotic troll**** unread again

--
Another retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rot:

Senile Rot: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rot: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 05:06:39 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 214 lines of stinking troll**** unread again

--
Another TYPICAL retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rot:

Senile Rot: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rot: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:06:39 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:58:52 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Precisely what I said,

Nope, there is no equivalent of a frame rate
with eyes. You don't get any reversal of the
rotation direction as you change the rotation
rate with eyes so there is no frame rate.

Only because the brain is clever and makes the most sense it can. Obviously your eyes must be able to give your brain x number of images per second.

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

You need to take the most sensitive part, as when driving any part of it
could see someone's lights.

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

It only takes one to cause an accident, and there's a lot of them.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't
see
either.

I see more than you do.

And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

I don't prefer or don't see?

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

My brain shows me what I can see and doesn't lie like yours.

Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

Nope, eyes don't have a frame rate. Trivial to
prove by observing that the rotation direction
never changes as the rotation speed is changed.

A faster camera and a faster eye can see much better.

Much worse in fact with car lights.

I don't want to be fooled, I want to know what is actually in front of me.

They also see flicker where the cheap **** cameras and your faulty eyes
can't.

Yours are the faulty eyes that see
flicker where no one else does.

The flicker is there, we're in agreement on that. I'd rather see what is actually there.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as
good as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there.

Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

A TV should have a phosphor (or equivalent for LEDs)

There is no equivalent for leds.

Of course there is, you could design a circuit for example that left each one lit until the next frame.

decay rate long enough to stay on until the next frame.

Problem is that produces smear with fast moving bits of images.

No, that's when the decay rate is slower than the frame rate.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

It's reality.

Your eyes/brain are assuming things look the same, when in fact they've
changed.

So I don't see flicker with car lights. Great.

If your eyes are reacting slower than mine and see flicker, you presumably also react slower to something you need to see, like brake lights. I have done tests and my reaction time is about twice as fast as average.

In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

Your problem, as always. None **** me off.

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

Well they must have done something, because they looked way less flickery
than a cheap 60Hz monitor.

they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.

Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

Because when I google persistence, I get things referring to screen burn.

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

No it doesn't. I've got an old Benq LCD monitor here that gets it for about 10 seconds. I remember CRTs (on old Apple Macs (about Performa 475 era)) getting it for about 10 minutes. It doesn't always last forever with either technology.

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?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half
agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

Well I understand this,

No you do not.

How can you possibly know if I don't?

From that stupid claim of yours above.

It's your end that's stupid.

do you?

Corse I do.

Don't believe you.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to believe in spades.

Stop backpedalling and discuss your shortfall properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample...pothesis_tests

To make it easier for you:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

For example, with the world population of 7.5 billion, to be 90% sure
you
only have an error margin of 10%, you only need 63 people in your
sample.

So yours is clearly a pathetically inadequate sample.

It's half of what's required for the above accuracy. I don't need that
much accuracy. Even if I was 20% out, then saying that 50% of people can
see flicker means that 40% can. 40% is a big enough part of the
population to cater for.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you don't in fact have a ****ing
clue about even the most basic statistics.

If you did, you'd tell me what I did wrong.

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. Funny how it's only recently we've had them fast enough to make switch mode power supplies and smaller coils possible.

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, who can all see something you can't? Is a dog a freak because it can smell better than we can? Or does it perhaps have the ability to detect what we miss?

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 θÎ*ατÏ�ον (théatron, "a place for viewing"), itself from θεάομαι (theáomai, "to see", "to watch", "to observe")."

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.

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. It makes you want to get rid of it.

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.

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.

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. Go do some research and stop yourself being so utterly clueless. 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.

On 2018-12-23 2:22 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
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?

Just a few mindlessly ranting freaks, like you.

I must have asked about 30 people I know about it, and about half
agreed
it was irritating.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

I've done statistics at uni,

And clearly the whole lot went right over your head, as always.

I know what an adequate sample is.

You clearly don't with that steaming turd above.

Well I understand this,

No you do not.

How can you possibly know if I don't?

From that stupid claim of yours above.

It's your end that's stupid.

do you?

Corse I do.

Don't believe you.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to believe in spades.

Stop backpedalling and discuss your shortfall properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample...pothesis_tests


To make it easier for you:
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

For example, with the world population of 7.5 billion, to be 90% sure
you
only have an error margin of 10%, you only need 63 people in your
sample.

So yours is clearly a pathetically inadequate sample.

It's half of what's required for the above accuracy.Â* I don't need that
much accuracy.Â* Even if I was 20% out, then saying that 50% of people
can
see flicker means that 40% can.Â* 40% is a big enough part of the
population to cater for.

Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you don't in fact have a ****ing
clue about even the most basic statistics.

If you did, you'd tell me what I did wrong.

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.Â* Funny how it's only recently we've had
them fast enough to make switch mode power supplies and smaller coils
possible.

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, who can all
see something you can't?Â* Is a dog a freak because it can smell better
than we can?Â* Or does it perhaps have the ability to detect what we miss?

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.Â* 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 θÎ*ατÏ�ον (théatron, "a place for viewing"), itself from
θεάομαι (theáomai, "to see", "to watch", "to observe")."

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.

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.Â* It makes you want to get rid of it.

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.

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.

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.Â* Go do some research and stop yourself being so utterly
clueless.Â* 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.

up your bum

On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 21:25:53 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-23 2:22 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
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 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.

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. Go do some research and stop yourself being so utterly
clueless. 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.

up your bum

I don't swing that way.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:55:20 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 3:45 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:35:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 3:24 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:04:56 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:55 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 20:52:12 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-22 1:50 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 03:25:19 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-21 6:54 p.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:37:18 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 11:23 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:14:07 -0000, % wrote:

On 2018-12-20 10:08 a.m., William Gothberg wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:04:50 -0000, Sir Gaygory's Owner's
Owner
�笛
wrote:

œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ it's peak value at exactly the same time. That's
how you
get 240V,
œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡œ¡ 120+120 = 240.

they know a lot about this over in alt.checkmate

What the **** are all those stars for?

i want them there

Why?

i charge a fee to answer questions

Go **** yourself.

now why would i do that when i'm having so much fun ****ing you

If you'd been ****ing me I'd have felt something.

you did that's why you were hollering and screaming and twitching
around
like now

No that's the drugs.

leave them alone then if they're fk'ing you

The positives outweigh the negatives.

i'm not a weight watcher

Weight is irrelevant, although smoking does lower your weight.

if it's irrelevant why did you say it

You're the one that brought up weight.

"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2018 18:06:39 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 22:58:52 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 21:27:05 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 02:53:46 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"William Gothberg" "William wrote in
message
news On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it.

Half the population isnt.

Then you must know a lot of people with ****ed eyesight.

Nothing ****ed about not seeing flicker on car lights.

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

No they do not. They actually have a flicker fusion threshold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Precisely what I said,

Nope, there is no equivalent of a frame rate
with eyes. You don't get any reversal of the
rotation direction as you change the rotation
rate with eyes so there is no frame rate.

Only because the brain is clever and makes the most sense it can.

Nope, if there was any frame rate with eyes, the brain
couldn't do that. It clearly cant with flashing leds.

Obviously your eyes must be able to give your brain x number of images per
second.

They actually do that continuously, no frame rate.

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

Even the flicker fusion threshold isnt. It varys with the
part of the eye the light that is flickering is viewed by
and by the intensity and depth of flicker too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

You need to take the most sensitive part, as when driving any part of it
could see someone's lights.

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

It only takes one to cause an accident,

It clearly doesn't cause accidents. If it did,
the flash rate would be legally mandated.

and there's a lot of them.

Sure.

Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight?

They are actually designed to work fine for all but freaks.

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

No you don't. Most obviously with higher flicker rates that you don't
see
either.

I see more than you do.

And that's obviously a bad thing when you
see flicker with car lights that only freaks see.

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

I don't prefer or don't see?

You don't see reality when the flicker rate is
above your personal flicker fusion threshold.
Everyone has one, they just vary.

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

My brain shows me what I can see

Not when the flicker rate is faster than
your personal flicker fusion threshold.

and doesn't lie like yours.

Yes it does when when the flicker rate is
faster than your personal flicker fusion
threshold, just like with everyone else.

If it didn't you'd see all led car lights flickering and
you have correctly said that some of them don't.

Why buy a 25fps video camera when you can buy a 50fps video camera?

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

Nope, eyes don't have a frame rate. Trivial to
prove by observing that the rotation direction
never changes as the rotation speed is changed.

A faster camera and a faster eye can see much better.

Much worse in fact with car lights.

I don't want to be fooled,

You are anyway when the flicker rate is faster
than your personal flicker fusion threshold.

I want to know what is actually in front of me.

You don't when the flicker rate is faster
than your personal flicker fusion threshold.

They also see flicker where the cheap **** cameras and your faulty eyes
can't.

Yours are the faulty eyes that see
flicker where no one else does.

The flicker is there, we're in agreement on that. I'd rather see what is
actually there.

You don't when the flicker rate is faster than your personal
flicker fusion threshold, just like with everyone else.

If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't
as good as mine.

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

We see what is really there, you don't.

Still ****ed to have all car lights flicker. You're a freak.

But they are flickering.

But its better not to see that. You're a freak.

It is better to see what is really there.

Like hell it is with car lights, movies, TVs, fluoros, monitors etc.

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

A TV should have a phosphor (or equivalent for LEDs)

There is no equivalent for leds.

Of course there is, you could design a circuit for example that left each
one lit until the next frame.

They do. There is no persistence involved, not off state
except when that bit of the screen is meant to be black.

decay rate long enough to stay on until the next frame.

Problem is that produces smear with fast moving bits of images.

No, that's when the decay rate is slower than the frame rate.

Wrong.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

It's reality.

No it isnt when the flicker rate is faster than your personal
flicker fusion threshold, just like with everyone else.

Your eyes/brain are assuming things look the same, when in fact they've
changed.

So I don't see flicker with car lights. Great.

If your eyes are reacting slower than mine and see flicker, you presumably
also react slower to something you need to see, like brake lights.

Only by milliseconds.

I have done tests and my reaction time is about twice as fast as average.

Nothing to do with personal flicker fusion threshold
and its completely trivial to prove that by measuring
both as your reaction time changes as you get ****ed.
Your personal flicker fusion threshold doesn't change
as your reaction time changes. They are entirely
different phenomena.

In fact I don't get to be ****ed off about flicker in common
stuff like car lights, TVs,. movies, fluoros etc etc etc.

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

Your problem, as always. None **** me off.

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

Go film one with a video camera, or just look up a video of one.

I know they flicker, that's irrelevant to
whether it makes any sense to see that.

I don't see any flicker with movies and it makes no sense
to be able to be see the flicker that is certainly there.

You don't see it because CRTs had phosphors to match the frame rate,

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

Well they must have done something, because they looked way less
flickery
than a cheap 60Hz monitor.

they would stay lit for the 50th of a second between each
illumination.
Same is done now with LCDs.

Wrong, as always. There is no persistence with lcds.

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

Because when I google persistence, I get things referring to screen
burn.

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

No it doesn't.

Screen burn does.

I've got an old Benq LCD monitor here that gets it for about 10 seconds.

That's not screen burn.

I remember CRTs (on old Apple Macs (about Performa 475 era)) getting it
for about 10 minutes. It doesn't always last forever with either
technology.

Real screen burn does.