With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb



mark

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:56:03 -0000, "mark"
wrote:


With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb



mark


"Goal price £20"

On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I followed this through a number of websites and found the whole topic
very interesting.

What I hadn't realised, if you google on Luxeon, is that they now have
LED's that are taking 1A plus. A quick run down some of the spec
sheets, then lead me on to find out how many lumens an incandescent
bulb produces as typically some of these high power leds are producing
170 lumens at 700mA. I found out from Wikipedia that a 100W bulb
produces 1700 lumens which means that a led equivalent requires 10 of
these leds which is 7A typical - OK this is at a couple of volts so
the power is quite low, but it does mean that we are going to have to
face some pretty powerful switching transformers (more electronic
noise) scattered around our houses, and what is more of a concern is
that we will have to rewire with automobile grade wiring - low voltage
insulation but lots of copper !!

As usual, we do get nothing for nothing and it's all very well the
pundits telling us that the next generation of lighting will be the
ultimate solution in terms of cost and efficiency but as is all too
common the whole picture has not been presented.

Rob

mark wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb



mark



Work in progress. Most of that page describes bullet-point "patent"
design ideals.

No-where does it describe the new technology to replace filament /
discharge lighting with equivalent optical output with energy saving.

Currently set up as a prototype there's a significant amount of
integration to be performed before it could become remotely viable, and
even then without the new technology to provide effective lighting
levels, it's a dead-duck.

A brave investment opportunity, to be sure. In the mean-time, I'll
continue stock-piling GU10s.

On 5 Feb, 16:57, Mike Dodd wrote:
mark wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

Work in progress. Most of that page describes bullet-point "patent"
design ideals.

No-where does it describe the new technology to replace filament /
discharge lighting with equivalent optical output with energy saving.

Currently set up as a prototype there's a significant amount of
integration to be performed before it could become remotely viable, and
even then without the new technology to provide effective lighting
levels, it's a dead-duck.

A brave investment opportunity, to be sure. In the mean-time, I'll
continue stock-piling GU10s.

I think if you read the website properly, you will see that the
target market is not the average home but those where there is
someone at risk as the light is integrated with a thermal sensor to
detect non-movement of an IR producing body. As such therefore the
market is one in which the purchaser of the 'lamp', typically a local
authority, will be able to move the lamp from house to house where
there is someone at risk. In that context the £20 is not
unreasonable.

I'm not related in anyway to the original 'spamming' mail but do get
irritated by posters who do not read posts carefully, and take in what
is actually being said

Rob

What I hadn't realised, if you google on Luxeon, is that they now have
LED's that are taking 1A plus. A quick run down some of the spec
sheets, then lead me on to find out how many lumens an incandescent
bulb produces as typically some of these high power leds are producing
170 lumens at 700mA. I found out from Wikipedia that a 100W bulb
produces 1700 lumens which means that a led equivalent requires 10 of
these leds which is 7A typical - OK this is at a couple of volts so
the power is quite low, but it does mean that we are going to have to
face some pretty powerful switching transformers (more electronic
noise) scattered around our houses, and what is more of a concern is
that we will have to rewire with automobile grade wiring - low voltage
insulation but lots of copper !!

As usual, we do get nothing for nothing and it's all very well the
pundits telling us that the next generation of lighting will be the
ultimate solution in terms of cost and efficiency but as is all too
common the whole picture has not been presented.

Rob

10 x 700mA LEDs wired in series is still only 700mA and 20V or so.

Archie

In article ,
robgraham writes:
As usual, we do get nothing for nothing and it's all very well the
pundits telling us that the next generation of lighting will be the
ultimate solution in terms of cost and efficiency but as is all too
common the whole picture has not been presented.

The big problem with LED light output figures are that they are
quoted at a junction temperature of 25C. Above this, light output
drops significantly and the life of the LEDs drop significantly.
To achieve a junction temperature of 25C in something the size of
a 100W GLS lamp with comparable light output and passive cooling,
you'd probably have to be operating it at something like -100C
ambient in a well ventilated fitting. That pretty much kills LED
lighting in the retrofit replacement lamp marketplace. Once you
go up to larger light sources which stand some chance of dissipating
the heat and remaining cooler, you're in the territory of fluorescent
tubes, and LEDs can't compete there.

I think they'll retain the niche they now have, but unless there's
a breakthrough that allows operation at much higher temperatures
or very much higher efficiency (which probably implies phosphor-less
operation), I don't see them replacing compact light sources such
as GU10 and MR16 halogens. Commercially, these have already been
replaced with metal halide anyway, and that will probably move into
the domestic market soon.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article
,
robgraham wrote:
What I hadn't realised, if you google on Luxeon, is that they now have
LED's that are taking 1A plus. A quick run down some of the spec
sheets, then lead me on to find out how many lumens an incandescent
bulb produces as typically some of these high power leds are producing
170 lumens at 700mA.

They produce a perfectly horrible light though - far worse than a CFL.
That might get sorted in time - but likely not.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

robgraham wrote:
On 5 Feb, 16:57, Mike Dodd wrote:
mark wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.
http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb
mark
Work in progress. Most of that page describes bullet-point "patent"
design ideals.

No-where does it describe the new technology to replace filament /
discharge lighting with equivalent optical output with energy saving.

Currently set up as a prototype there's a significant amount of
integration to be performed before it could become remotely viable, and
even then without the new technology to provide effective lighting
levels, it's a dead-duck.

A brave investment opportunity, to be sure. In the mean-time, I'll
continue stock-piling GU10s.

I think if you read the website properly, you will see that the
target market is not the average home but those where there is
someone at risk as the light is integrated with a thermal sensor to
detect non-movement of an IR producing body. As such therefore the
market is one in which the purchaser of the 'lamp', typically a local
authority, will be able to move the lamp from house to house where
there is someone at risk. In that context the £20 is not
unreasonable.

I'm not related in anyway to the original 'spamming' mail but do get
irritated by posters who do not read posts carefully, and take in what
is actually being said

Rob

Ok, for what it's worth, I did read the whole of the first page, and the
link on the page to the prototype.

I'll rise to the post. The vast majority of recent posts talking about
new lighting technology, as referred to by the OP is related to lighting
efficiency.

The site suggests that the bulb will be a replacement for standard bulbs
("retrofit"), and so the implication is that it is an equivalent to a
standard bulb. Create a viable low-energy bulb, however, and there's a
significant market.

The is still the very real problem that the "inventor" has yet to
integrate a thermal imaging device, together with LED technology that
will generate significant heat on the same substrate, integrate this
with a microprocessor (why not an ASIC?), develop the software, test and
get to market, for what is a very limited market. Draw in the
development costs of all that, and the true market and life of the item,
and tell me that it's commercially viable at £20 a pop?

It's a idea. That idea has been patented (well, patent applied for), but
it is far, far from being realised as a product.

Reply if you must, but I shall not.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

[...] That pretty much kills LED lighting in the retrofit replacement
lamp marketplace. Once you go up to larger light sources which stand
some chance of dissipating the heat and remaining cooler, you're in
the territory of fluorescent tubes, and LEDs can't compete there.

I think they'll retain the niche they now have, but unless there's
a breakthrough [...]

Some people seem to think that's coming soon:
http://www.rsd.cam.ac.uk/events/hori..._Humphreys.pdf

--
Andy

On Feb 5, 3:56 pm, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

Its a joke, the picture is of a commodity ES multi 5mm LED lamp, then
talks of using Lumileds LEDs.
Integrating a PIR, have a 3 LED light sitting here with a PIR , 3.99
from Lidl couple of weeks back.

As to LEDs being stuck in a niche, thermal management and die to sink
transfer is getting better, so they are getting used :

http://www.lumecon.com/imsa_led_stre...g_article.html

Adam

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
robgraham wrote:
What I hadn't realised, if you google on Luxeon, is that they now have
LED's that are taking 1A plus. A quick run down some of the spec
sheets, then lead me on to find out how many lumens an incandescent
bulb produces as typically some of these high power leds are producing
170 lumens at 700mA.

They produce a perfectly horrible light though - far worse than a CFL.
That might get sorted in time - but likely not.

"perfectly horrible" is a subjective value judgement, it isn't everyone's
opinion.

We replaced spot halogens on our landing, which lit large oil paintings in
the stairwell and effectively lit the landing, with LEDs - which give a very
pleasing (to us) 'moonlight' quality to the lighting. It's perfectly
acceptable in that situation and is far more 'natural' than either tungsten
or halogen.

By the way, they were very cheap - from Lidl or Aldi.

Mary

On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
They produce a perfectly horrible light though - far worse than a CFL.
That might get sorted in time - but likely not.

"perfectly horrible" is a subjective value judgement, it isn't
everyone's opinion.

We replaced spot halogens on our landing, which lit large oil paintings
in the stairwell and effectively lit the landing, with LEDs - which
give a very pleasing (to us) 'moonlight' quality to the lighting.

Even worse for this purpose. I doubt the artist spent all that time
carefully choosing colours just to have them ruined by crappy lighting.

It's
perfectly acceptable in that situation and is far more 'natural' than
either tungsten or halogen.

No it's not. LEDs give nothing close to any natural light.

By the way, they were very cheap - from Lidl or Aldi.

Was that the oil paintings?

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The is still the very real problem that the "inventor" has yet to
integrate a thermal imaging device, together with LED technology that will
generate significant heat on the same substrate, integrate this with a
microprocessor (why not an ASIC?), develop the software, test and get to
market, for what is a very limited market. Draw in the development costs
of all that, and the true market and life of the item, and tell me that
it's commercially viable at £20 a pop?


I emailed the 'inventor' to query why not an ASIC and got back this reply:

Quote:
why don't I use a ASIC, I use a microcontroller so new software can be
downloaded to upgrade the lightbulb, into it's flash memory. ASICs are fixed
for life.

Also PIRs cannot measure precise temperature at a distance, thermopiles can
measure to an accuracy of 1 C or less


mark

wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

Thank you for that! I do know how to use apostrophes but haste can cause a
malfunction in their application. Good job we've got you to monitor. 'How
to Win Friends and Influence People', is not on your bookshelf I take it?

mark

"mark" wrote in message
...

The is still the very real problem that the "inventor" has yet to
integrate a thermal imaging device, together with LED technology that
will generate significant heat on the same substrate, integrate this with
a microprocessor (why not an ASIC?), develop the software, test and get
to market, for what is a very limited market. Draw in the development
costs of all that, and the true market and life of the item, and tell me
that it's commercially viable at £20 a pop?


I emailed the 'inventor' to query why not an ASIC and got back this reply:

Quote:
why don't I use a ASIC, I use a microcontroller so new software can be
downloaded to upgrade the lightbulb, into it's flash memory. ASICs are
fixed for life.

Also PIRs cannot measure precise temperature at a distance, thermopiles
can measure to an accuracy of 1 C or less

Why do they need such accuracy ?
And even so waiting for the body temperature to drop by 1C would probably
mean the person is dead by the time the bulb responds, and what then.
They'd be better oof puttingin a wireless link to an alarm.
I think these LED lights would be good in a toilet/bathroom.
I wouldn't have to find the pull cord when ****ed as I entered the bathroom,
and I might even be able to find the toilet if the light came on otherwose
I'd end up just aiming in the general direction ;-)
I've actually though about placing LEDs in teh tiolet bowl at night as
something to
aim at, but keeping them cleam is a problem, so maybe I need to mount them
in/under the bowl somehow.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
They produce a perfectly horrible light though - far worse than a CFL.
That might get sorted in time - but likely not.

"perfectly horrible" is a subjective value judgement, it isn't
everyone's opinion.

We replaced spot halogens on our landing, which lit large oil paintings
in the stairwell and effectively lit the landing, with LEDs - which
give a very pleasing (to us) 'moonlight' quality to the lighting.

Even worse for this purpose. I doubt the artist spent all that time
carefully choosing colours just to have them ruined by crappy lighting.

It's not crappy - and the artist knows how they're lit and approves. It
gives an added dimension.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:foceff$sgl$1@qmul...

....

I've actually though about placing LEDs in teh tiolet bowl at night as
something to
aim at, but keeping them cleam is a problem, so maybe I need to mount them
in/under the bowl somehow.

Mounting LEDs sounds a new quirk ...

"mark" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

Thank you for that! I do know how to use apostrophes but haste can cause a
malfunction in their application. Good job we've got you to monitor. 'How
to Win Friends and Influence People', is not on your bookshelf I take it?

mark

Don't worry about it, he used 'but' after a comma.

On 6 Feb, 14:10, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"mark" wrote in message

...







wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

Thank you for that! I do know how to use apostrophes but haste can cause a
malfunction in their application. *Good job we've got you to monitor. 'How
to Win Friends and Influence People', is not on your bookshelf I take it?

mark

Don't worry about it, he used 'but' after a comma.

Oops! I think you're referring to the rule about a comma after 'but'.
Never mind - nice try.

Oops! I think you're referring to the rule about a comma after 'but'.
Never mind - nice try.

Is this the "rule" that says do not put a comma in front of the
parenthetical element when a parenthetical element comes after a
coordinating conjunction?

If so it is something I have only ever encountered as a "rule" from
American sources; and one which escaped the notice of authors such as
Jane Austen who in Pride and Prejudice included to give but 2 examples:

"I was so vexed to
see him stand up with her; but, however, he did not admire her
at all: indeed, nobody can, you know; and he seemed quite
struck with Jane as she was going down the dance."

and

"He was beyond comparison the
pleasantest man; he certainly admired her, and his situation in
life was most eligible; but, to counterbalance these
advantages, Mr. Darcy had considerable patronage in the church,
and his cousin could have none at all."

Roger Woodham writes (with a nice, subtle example) on the BBC WS site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...rnitv258.shtml

"A comma (,) generally indicates pauses in speech. But, when it joins
two clauses, it indicates a contrast between two ideas. In speech it is
normal to draw attention to this contrast by a slight pause. A comma is
the usual way of indicating this, although it is not obligatory:
a.. Sheila can eat anything and large quantities of it, but she never
puts on weight.

b.. I'm going to make some New Year resolutions, but I don't suppose
I'll keep them
A comma after but would be very unusual, .....

I go along with that as plain English would militate for simpler
sentence constructions.

--
Robin

On Feb 6, 1:27*pm, "mark" wrote:
The is still the very real problem that the "inventor" has yet to
integrate a thermal imaging device, together with LED technology that will
generate significant heat on the same substrate, integrate this with a
microprocessor (why not an ASIC?), develop the software, test and get to
market, for what is a very limited market. Draw in the development costs
of all that, and the true market and life of the item, and tell me that
it's commercially viable at £20 a pop?

I emailed the 'inventor' to query why not an ASIC and got back this reply:

Quote:
why don't I use a ASIC, I use a microcontroller so new software can be
downloaded to upgrade the lightbulb, into it's flash memory. ASICs are fixed
for life.

That's a good answer for development work but how does he propose
upgrading them in the field? A small FLASH PLD would probably be a
better solution. methinks an ASIC would be overkill.

MBQ

wrote in message
...
On 6 Feb, 14:10, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"mark" wrote in message

...







wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light
bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

Thank you for that! I do know how to use apostrophes but haste can cause
a
malfunction in their application. Good job we've got you to monitor.
'How
to Win Friends and Influence People', is not on your bookshelf I take
it?

mark

Don't worry about it, he used 'but' after a comma.

Oops! I think you're referring to the rule about a comma after 'but'.
Never mind - nice try.

Not at all. I know of no rule about a comma AFTER 'but'.

Perhaps you're confused ...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

wrote in message
...
On 6 Feb, 14:10, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"mark" wrote in message

...







wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light
bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

Thank you for that! I do know how to use apostrophes but haste can
cause a
malfunction in their application. Good job we've got you to monitor.
'How
to Win Friends and Influence People', is not on your bookshelf I take
it?

mark

Don't worry about it, he used 'but' after a comma.

Oops! I think you're referring to the rule about a comma after 'but'.
Never mind - nice try.

Not at all. I know of no rule about a comma AFTER 'but'.

Perhaps you're confused ...

There again, I don't know everything.

Do you?

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
robgraham writes:
As usual, we do get nothing for nothing and it's all very well the
pundits telling us that the next generation of lighting will be the
ultimate solution in terms of cost and efficiency but as is all too
common the whole picture has not been presented.

The big problem with LED light output figures are that they are
quoted at a junction temperature of 25C. Above this, light output
drops significantly and the life of the LEDs drop significantly.
To achieve a junction temperature of 25C in something the size of
a 100W GLS lamp with comparable light output and passive cooling,
you'd probably have to be operating it at something like -100C
ambient in a well ventilated fitting. That pretty much kills LED
lighting in the retrofit replacement lamp marketplace. Once you
go up to larger light sources which stand some chance of dissipating
the heat and remaining cooler, you're in the territory of fluorescent
tubes, and LEDs can't compete there.


Funnily enough an article just appeared in Photonics Spectra by the guys at
Philips Lumileds entitled "Busting Myths About LED reliability".


I've not read this yet, but from a quick scan they are overdriving 1A
devices at 1.5Amps and still achieving 10000 hours lifetime,and a drop of
about 10% in output at end of life.
Thats pretty good going

I suppose most of your comments would probably appear to fall into the Myths
category according to the authors :-)

While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are a
relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for significant
improvements.

cheers

David

"DM" wrote in message
...

....

While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are a
relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for significant
improvements.

That's what I think too - and I believe we should support the R&D. If
there's only negative feedback there won't be a demand so the technology
won't be improved.

Mary

On Feb 6, 4:25*pm, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On 6 Feb, 14:10, "Mary Fisher" wrote:





"mark" wrote in message

...

wrote in message
....
On 5 Feb, 15:56, "mark" wrote:
With all the recent talk on light bulbs, here is a low energy light
bulb
with no mercury and its clever.

http://girtonlabs.googlepages.com/sensebulb

mark

I know it's not really done to comment on grammar, especially here
where we're more concerned with imparting information than how that
information is imparted, but it must have taken some sort of cognitive
process to put the apostrophe incorrectly in the possessive "its" in
the subject line, but to have incorrectly omitted it in the
contraction of "it is" in the message body.

I find the usenet group alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe useful in
this regard.

Thank you for that! I do know how to use apostrophes but haste can cause
a
malfunction in their application. Good job we've got you to monitor.
'How
to Win Friends and Influence People', is not on your bookshelf I take
it?

mark

Don't worry about it, he used 'but' after a comma.

Oops! I think you're referring to the rule about a comma after 'but'.
Never mind - nice try.

Not at all. I know of no rule about a comma AFTER 'but'.

Try here - http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm - though
why I'm doing your primary research for you, God only knows. And in
answer to your second question - no, I don't know everything, but I'm
pretty sure I know more than you about English usage. I defer to you,
however, on lighting.

In article ,
DM wrote:
While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are
a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.

LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Try here - http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm - though
why I'm doing your primary research for you, God only knows. And in
answer to your second question - no, I don't know everything, but I'm
pretty sure I know more than you about English usage. I defer to you,
however, on lighting.

Surely all that is saying is that one should avoid *unnecessary* commas
after conjunctions. Like most generalisations about the English
language, it does not address the various circumstances in which a comma
may be necessary or desirable. These are discussed at some length in at
least one book available online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=w8n...omIMAcmR_j9GoM
(pages 127-128)

--
Robin

On Feb 6, 11:00 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:

While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are
a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.

LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

White and blue are products of the 90`s look up Shuji Nakamura and
gallium nitride, high power LEDs in big dice form have only been
around since after the millenium.

Adam

"neverwas" wrote in message
. ..
Try here - http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm - though
why I'm doing your primary research for you, God only knows. And in
answer to your second question - no, I don't know everything, but I'm
pretty sure I know more than you about English usage. I defer to you,
however, on lighting.

Surely all that is saying is that one should avoid *unnecessary* commas
after conjunctions. Like most generalisations about the English language,
it does not address the various circumstances in which a comma may be
necessary or desirable. These are discussed at some length in at least
one book available online:
http://books.google.com/books?id=w8n...omIMAcmR_j9GoM
(pages 127-128)

--
Robin


Excuse me this thread is about lightbulbs not commas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


mark

Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:00 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:

While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are
a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.
LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

White and blue are products of the 90`s look up Shuji Nakamura and
gallium nitride, high power LEDs in big dice form have only been
around since after the millenium.


big DIE form. Dice is the plural.

Adam

In uk.d-i-y, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:
White and blue are products of the 90`s look up Shuji Nakamura and
gallium nitride, high power LEDs in big dice form have only been
around since after the millenium.


big DIE form. Dice is the plural.

According to the NSOED (New Shorter Oxford Dictionary) "dice" is also a
singular word and has the plural "dices". So there.

--
Mike Barnes

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:
While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are
a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.

LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.


They have indeed, now read slowly with emphasis on the bit that says High Power.

In article
,
Adam Aglionby wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:00 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article , DM
wrote:

While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they are
a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.

LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.


White and blue are products of the 90`s look up Shuji Nakamura and
gallium nitride, high power LEDs in big dice form have only been
around since after the millenium.

We're still waiting for a white one.

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
DM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DM
wrote:
While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they
are a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.

LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.


They have indeed, now read slowly with emphasis on the bit that says
High Power.

You'd need to define 'high power'. And define the light output from them
too. And their life. That is the problem with LEDs.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DM
wrote:
While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they
are a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.
LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.


They have indeed, now read slowly with emphasis on the bit that says
High Power.

You'd need to define 'high power'. And define the light output from them
too. And their life. That is the problem with LEDs.


.... and posters who just never want to back down after making pedantic
statements is a problem with newsgroups

In article ,
DM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DM
wrote:
While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they
are a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.
LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.


They have indeed, now read slowly with emphasis on the bit that says
High Power.

You'd need to define 'high power'. And define the light output from
them too. And their life. That is the problem with LEDs.


... and posters who just never want to back down after making pedantic
statements is a problem with newsgroups

I prefer not to take adverts as gospel - that's all.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DM
wrote:
While High Power LEDs aren't quite there yet for most lighting, they
are a relatively young technology and it is easy to see the room for
significant improvements.
LEDs have been around for well over 30 years.

They have indeed, now read slowly with emphasis on the bit that says
High Power.
You'd need to define 'high power'. And define the light output from
them too. And their life. That is the problem with LEDs.


... and posters who just never want to back down after making pedantic
statements is a problem with newsgroups

I prefer not to take adverts as gospel - that's all.


I don't think anybody is...where did that come from?