Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
Paul Hyett wrote:

IMO energy-saving bulbs aren't all they're cracked up to be, anyway.

They might not actually *fail* for a long time, but they fade over time,

No that's just you getting older.

I SAID THAT'S JUST oh never mind.

Leonard Cohen innit?

I have that. ****, Santa's coming...


Martin

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:28:45 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:31:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

By Sep 2012 new technology LED lamps should be in full production

that's just 3 years but I'd like your optimism to be true!

It's a promise the LED lighting industry has broken for every
one of the last 20 years!

We now have some very viable units in mass production at reasonable
prices. I understand your scepticism, but I do not see 3 years as
being overly optimistic. Right now it would be quite possible to
illuminate your entire house (including garden floodlights) with
commercially available LED lighting.

Do you have a link to these products?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

bof wrote:
In message , Dave
writes
Cynic wrote:

LEDs are inherently more directional than other forms of lighting.
That is in fact a good thing, because any light that is illuminating
areas you don't *need* to be illuminated is wasted energy. Coverage
angles are increased either by mounting several LEDs at different
angles, or with suitable optics (usually diffuser/lens combination,
which increases the price).

As far as car running lights go, they are rubbish. Look at the angle
of view they disapear at on a Mercedes. It is very narrow.

At night I find the on/off flickering of LED brake lights particularly
annoying, why not have interleaved arrays of LEDs that turn on at
different times to give the effect of a constant light?

Why not just make them flash about 100 times faster, i.e. about 100kHz
rather than about 1kHz or thereabouts that a lot of them currently do?

It really is not hard to make LEDs flash on and off. Tens or hundreds
of MHz is easy and routine. So 100kHz should not be a problem at all.

No, I suspect the flash rate is *kept* down to MAKE the flash just
noticeable, to make the car look "flash" by standing out conspicuously
from those cheaper cars with mere incandescent brake lights that do NOT
flash. It's for posing.

Regarding the other poster not being about to see the flashing: I've had
a technique for detecting very rapidly-flashing lights since I was about
10 and starting in electronics with 555 timers making bulbs and LEDs
flash at varying rates. You kind of "flick" your eyeball as quick as you
can between looking up, above the flashing light, and then down, looking
below it. What you see is a broken (dashed, or dotted) trace that gets
left on the retina, which persistence of vision allows you to see, and
analyse. So you not only get to estimate the RATE (Hz) of flashing, but
also, the mark-space ratio, or duty cycle.

Huge wrote:

I believe that it is only 100W bulbs and frosted pearl bulbs of other
wattages that will be banned.
You'll still be able to buy them from overseas sellers on the likes on Ebay
I should imagine.
Provided you get 240V or 250V versions.

230V versions won't last long...

They're all the same


CFLs maybe. But not incandescent GLS type bulbs. Take a close look at one for
the UK market - its labelled 240V (or sometimes 250V).

Ones for the euro market are 230V.

Voltage across the EU was harmonised cleverly by not doing anything at all.
The spec across Europe was set to officially 230V but the tolerance is
+10%/-6% (ie 216V to 253V) meaning mainland Europe stayed at 220-230V and the
UK stayed at 240-250V.

This means that 230V bulbs fed on a UK supply (which could be up to 250V) are
being run significantly over their rated voltage and the filament will burn
out quicker.

In message , Fleetie
writes
bof wrote:
In message , Dave
writes
Cynic wrote:

LEDs are inherently more directional than other forms of lighting.
That is in fact a good thing, because any light that is illuminating
areas you don't *need* to be illuminated is wasted energy. Coverage
angles are increased either by mounting several LEDs at different
angles, or with suitable optics (usually diffuser/lens combination,
which increases the price).

As far as car running lights go, they are rubbish. Look at the angle
of view they disapear at on a Mercedes. It is very narrow.

At night I find the on/off flickering of LED brake lights particularly
annoying, why not have interleaved arrays of LEDs that turn on at
different times to give the effect of a constant light?

Why not just make them flash about 100 times faster, i.e. about 100kHz
rather than about 1kHz or thereabouts that a lot of them currently do?

It really is not hard to make LEDs flash on and off. Tens or hundreds
of MHz is easy and routine. So 100kHz should not be a problem at all.


As they all seem to run at relatively low frequencies I'd assumed they
became lossy once they were driven at higher rates.

Regarding the other poster not being about to see the flashing: I've had
a technique for detecting very rapidly-flashing lights since I was about
10 and starting in electronics with 555 timers making bulbs and LEDs
flash at varying rates.

I first recall seeing the effect when waving around LED calculators in
the early 70s, though that's more likely the display digits being
multiplexed than for efficiency.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

Mike Barnes wrote:


Additionally, why do some car manufacturers (Land Rover, VW, Skoda,
please take note) think it's a good idea to surround an indicator lamp
with a brake lamp? I suspect it's so that the indicator is almost
invisible when (as seems to be the fashion nowadays) people signal long
after they've started braking. More profit from replacement bumpers,
body panels, etc?


That is a pet hate of mine. The VW design is particularly bad.

OK Everyone knows you should indicate before braking but Joe Public tends to
do them both at the same time (if you're lucky) or even brake before
indicating. The VW indicator is just not noticeable unless you actively look
for it in this situation.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:45:35 +0100, Kim Bolton wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Max Demian writes:

You're the second person to use the word 'luminaire' in this thread
today. I've never heard it before. You learn something new every day.

Sorry, it's lighting industry jargon for a light fitting (and
I mistyped it anyway;-)

Also, 'lamp' is lighting industry jargon for a light bulb.

and 'bulb' is lighting industry jargon for the outer glass
of a 'lamp', or a small battery torch bulb, or something you
plant in the garden and grows into a flower, but not for a
light bulb;-)

Lamps glow, bulbs grow...

Bulbs are, er, bulbous, innit.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:24:55 +0100, bof
wrote:

At night I find the on/off flickering of LED brake lights particularly
annoying

I have never noticed such an effect.

At night move you sight from left to right and you should see the effect
quite clearly, same for the new(ish) flashing orange 'road works' lamps
on motorways, when they're on they are actually flashing.

I'll try it. It may well be an effect that only a low percentage of
people can see. A similar effect is known about DLP projectors. A
small proportion of people see a very annoying fringing effect when
moving their eyes across the screen, whilst the majority of people are
completely unaffected. Putting more sectors on the spinning
colour-wheel increases the colour frame frequency and seems to have
stopped the effect in succeptible people.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:01:09 +0100, Fleetie
wrote:

At night I find the on/off flickering of LED brake lights particularly
annoying, why not have interleaved arrays of LEDs that turn on at
different times to give the effect of a constant light?

Why not just make them flash about 100 times faster, i.e. about 100kHz
rather than about 1kHz or thereabouts that a lot of them currently do?

It really is not hard to make LEDs flash on and off. Tens or hundreds
of MHz is easy and routine. So 100kHz should not be a problem at all.

No, I suspect the flash rate is *kept* down to MAKE the flash just
noticeable, to make the car look "flash" by standing out conspicuously
from those cheaper cars with mere incandescent brake lights that do NOT
flash. It's for posing.

I very much doubt it. More likely so as to make them CE compliant. A
high current square wave creates a lot of EMI at frequencies way above
the square wave frequency. To prevent it, you have to round off the
square edges by slowing the rise and fall times of the pulses. The
higher the frequency, the less the rise and fall times can be slowed,
and so the more difficult it is to suppress EMI.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 at 18:23:47, Cynic wrote in
uk.legal :

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:09:59 GMT, Paul Hyett
wrote:

IMO energy-saving bulbs aren't all they're cracked up to be, anyway.

They might not actually *fail* for a long time, but they fade over time,
shortening their useful life that way.

As I have posted before, forget CFLs. Wait a short while

In the dark, presumably?

and there
will be plenty of LED room lighting options. LEDs are more energy
efficient, provide a better quality of light (IMO), may be dimmed, and
are less polluting both in manufacture and in disposal.

What about price, though?

Unfortunately it is unlikely that we will see LED lights that are
plug-in replacements for incandecent bulbs any time soon

And there's the catch...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:10:06 +0100, Willy Eckerslyke
wrote:

Huge wrote:

But the OP has a point. The 23W one in the luminaire outside my front door
just failed (after not much more than a year - I have now started writing
the dates on these bulbs so I know how long they really last) and I replaced
it with an 11W since that was what I had. And it's brighter than the 23W
one was.

I know. In the general scheme of things it's all a bit pointless and
mildly irritating, but not the greatest injustice ever inflicted upon us
- as some posts in this thread might imply.

Well OK, I'd go along with that, but It rates !

It's just I regard it as very bad for the government to make
compulsory changes to our lives for the benefit of big European
business relying on ignorance in the populace that arises from a tenth
rate system of technical education in such basic day to day matters
to get away with it.


FWIW, I'm still impressed with those expensive Biolbulbs. They're
holding up well, except for the one that I killed by banging my head on
it. I'd probably have bought a couple just for the quality of the light,
regardless of the energy saving. No good with dimmers though.

They're probably OK CFL's but that's all they are, if *very* expensive
(& Who's getting all that $$Money$$ ?).

Claims have been made that their "continuous daylight spectrum" can
cure everything from allergies through death watch beetle in wooden
legs, to night starvation caused by shortage of melatonin.

That's Hocus-Pocus bull****.

Derek

"Willy Eckerslyke" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

The alternatives to flying (car, train, buses, ships) all create more
pollution than flying.

All?

Regardless of distance, number of passengers, over the complete journey
(not just airport to airport), always?

Haven't really thought this through, have you?

Yes.
You obviously haven't.

Few airlines run empty planes and they will cancel the flight and put you
onto another if its not full enough.
Buses, trains, etc. frequently run empty.
Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:28:45 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:31:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

By Sep 2012 new technology LED lamps should be in full production

that's just 3 years but I'd like your optimism to be true!

It's a promise the LED lighting industry has broken for every
one of the last 20 years!

We now have some very viable units in mass production at reasonable
prices. I understand your scepticism, but I do not see 3 years as
being overly optimistic. Right now it would be quite possible to
illuminate your entire house (including garden floodlights) with
commercially available LED lighting.


Do you get a free set of night vision binoculars with every cwt. of
LED lamps ?

Personally I would fit about 20 or so small flush-fitting 5W LED units
into the ceiling of a medium size room. It would provide an
*extremely* bright but glare-free room (when needed) and an even,
shadow-free light. Dimming can be achieved by not having them all
switched on, which also has the advantage of allowing part of the room
to be bright (perhaps for reading) and another part dim (for TV
viewing).


My postcode is LS27 7QZ. Since they are commercially available perhaps
you could indicate the nearest showroom where I can see an "entire
house" lit by such lights.

I'll be there with my light meter.

Derek

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

But in any case you can still buy the 30%-less-power halogen
bulbs in the traditional format. I can't see any reason not
to use them.

They're also nearly 30% dimmer.

I have been replacing the 60W candle bulbs in a 3-bulb fitting with
the 42W halogen bulbs. They're noticably brighter than the old ones.
If course, the old ones are... old, but I don't think traditional bulbs
deteriorate that much.

They do.
They are pretty much the same as CFLs in that if you replace them when they
go dim you are throwing away half their life.

The halogen ones are visibly brighter than the ordinary ones even at the
reduced power.
This may be because they are more blue and may not actually emit more light,
I have not measured one.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:15:13 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

We now have some very viable units in mass production at reasonable
prices. I understand your scepticism, but I do not see 3 years as
being overly optimistic. Right now it would be quite possible to
illuminate your entire house (including garden floodlights) with
commercially available LED lighting.

Do you get a free set of night vision binoculars with every cwt. of
LED lamps ?

You obviously have no idea whatsoever of what is available today.

Personally I would fit about 20 or so small flush-fitting 5W LED units
into the ceiling of a medium size room. It would provide an
*extremely* bright but glare-free room (when needed) and an even,
shadow-free light. Dimming can be achieved by not having them all
switched on, which also has the advantage of allowing part of the room
to be bright (perhaps for reading) and another part dim (for TV
viewing).

My postcode is LS27 7QZ. Since they are commercially available perhaps
you could indicate the nearest showroom where I can see an "entire
house" lit by such lights.

Did I even imply that such a house existed?

I'll be there with my light meter.

Please feel free to set up a test and do so. Perhaps use 3 X 5W LED
fittings in a test rig and compare with a single 15W incandescent in
its place.

20X5W LED fittings will light a room *considerably* brighter than a
100W incandecent, and you will seldom want them all on at once.

--
Cynic

In message , Willy Eckerslyke
writes
dennis@home wrote:

The alternatives to flying (car, train, buses, ships) all create more
pollution than flying.

All?

Regardless of distance, number of passengers, over the complete journey
(not just airport to airport), always?

Haven't really thought this through, have you?

Thats one of Dennis's specialities, that is,

oh, ... and just plain being wrong


--
geoff

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:30:31 +0100, Cynic
wrote the following to uk.misc:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

Bit tricky to get your shopping back from the supermarket in though.

mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

Now you have done it, a direct reasoned attack on the common, but erroneous,
belief that buses, trains, etc are better (regarding pollution) than cars
and planes.
There was one guy on the radio that claimed barges were better as they only
used a gallon an hour, but they do only do three miles per hour.

"Cynic" wrote in message
...

Personally I would fit about 20 or so small flush-fitting 5W LED units
into the ceiling of a medium size room. It would provide an
*extremely* bright but glare-free room (when needed) and an even,
shadow-free light. Dimming can be achieved by not having them all
switched on, which also has the advantage of allowing part of the room
to be bright (perhaps for reading) and another part dim (for TV
viewing).

Aren't LEDs really good at being dimmed anyway? (with appropriate drivers).
Better than switching some off, surely?

In message , Cynic
writes
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:24:55 +0100, bof
wrote:

At night I find the on/off flickering of LED brake lights particularly
annoying

I have never noticed such an effect.

At night move you sight from left to right and you should see the effect
quite clearly, same for the new(ish) flashing orange 'road works' lamps
on motorways, when they're on they are actually flashing.

I'll try it. It may well be an effect that only a low percentage of
people can see. A similar effect is known about DLP projectors.

Dunno if they're, DLP or not, but standing on the presenter side of some
projectors I definitely see a similar strobe effect (IIRC I see an R, a
G and a B image, BICBW)

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

The ship figure is from a cruise ship. More interesting would be to see what
a ferry uses.

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

The ship figure is from a cruise ship. More interesting would be to see
what a ferry uses.

I would expect a ferry to have more drag but they may cram in more
passengers.
Basically It depends on how you schedule the service.
You can make buses very efficient if you run them full, however people
already complain that they only get one bus a week.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

The same goes for traffic lights. There is a traffic light controlled
roundabout near here and if you are in the R/H lane, you can not see
the colour of the light until the last minute, because of the angle
the lights are presented to the driver. (You can't see the stop lines
until the last minute either, because of the contour of the road.)

That would be to slow you down.
You have to slow down to see if its ok to go.

What about those lights on roundabouts that are only in use at certain
times of day?

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

The same goes for traffic lights. There is a traffic light controlled
roundabout near here and if you are in the R/H lane, you can not see the
colour of the light until the last minute, because of the angle the
lights are presented to the driver. (You can't see the stop lines until
the last minute either, because of the contour of the road.)

That would be to slow you down.
You have to slow down to see if its ok to go.

What about those lights on roundabouts that are only in use at certain
times of day?


You have to slow down to see if its ok.

Dave

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't
come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

The ship figure is from a cruise ship. More interesting would be to see
what a ferry uses.

I would expect a ferry to have more drag but they may cram in more
passengers.

And less energy spent on heating, lighting, etc.

Ships are also generally cargo-shifters, not people shifters, so need to
factor that in too. Not easy, is it?

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't
come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

The ship figure is from a cruise ship. More interesting would be to see
what a ferry uses.

I would expect a ferry to have more drag but they may cram in more
passengers.

And less energy spent on heating, lighting, etc.

Ships are also generally cargo-shifters, not people shifters, so need to
factor that in too. Not easy, is it?

but also totally irrelevant.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..

The same goes for traffic lights. There is a traffic light
controlled roundabout near here and if you are in the R/H lane, you
can not see the colour of the light until the last minute, because
of the angle the lights are presented to the driver. (You can't see
the stop lines until the last minute either, because of the contour of the road.)

That would be to slow you down.
You have to slow down to see if its ok to go.

What about those lights on roundabouts that are only in use at
certain times of day?


You have to slow down to see if its ok.

Surely Dennis, the only way you could go any slower would be to put it
in reverse


--
geoff

Fleetie wrote:

Regarding the other poster not being about to see the flashing: I've had
a technique for detecting very rapidly-flashing lights since I was about
10 and starting in electronics with 555 timers making bulbs and LEDs
flash at varying rates. You kind of "flick" your eyeball as quick as you
can between looking up, above the flashing light, and then down, looking
below it. What you see is a broken (dashed, or dotted) trace that gets
left on the retina, which persistence of vision allows you to see, and
analyse. So you not only get to estimate the RATE (Hz) of flashing, but
also, the mark-space ratio, or duty cycle.

Just wave a hand around in front of it.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:20:26 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't
come
into the equation.

cite, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...transportation

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

The ship figure is from a cruise ship. More interesting would be to see
what a ferry uses.

I would expect a ferry to have more drag but they may cram in more
passengers.

And less energy spent on heating, lighting, etc.

Ships are also generally cargo-shifters, not people shifters, so need to
factor that in too. Not easy, is it?

but also totally irrelevant.

You mean irrelevant in a manner that means that a trivial passenger/mile
figure hides the rather more important stuff behind it? Right...

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:28:45 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:31:47 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

By Sep 2012 new technology LED lamps should be in full production

that's just 3 years but I'd like your optimism to be true!

It's a promise the LED lighting industry has broken for every
one of the last 20 years!

We now have some very viable units in mass production at reasonable
prices. I understand your scepticism, but I do not see 3 years as
being overly optimistic. Right now it would be quite possible to
illuminate your entire house (including garden floodlights) with
commercially available LED lighting.

Do you get a free set of night vision binoculars with every cwt. of
LED lamps ?

Personally I would fit about 20 or so small flush-fitting 5W LED units
into the ceiling of a medium size room. It would provide an
*extremely* bright but glare-free room (when needed) and an even,
shadow-free light. Dimming can be achieved by not having them all
switched on, which also has the advantage of allowing part of the room
to be bright (perhaps for reading) and another part dim (for TV
viewing).

My postcode is LS27 7QZ. Since they are commercially available perhaps
you could indicate the nearest showroom where I can see an "entire
house" lit by such lights.
I'll be there with my light meter.
Derek


Pop into Poundland and buy a dozen of their circular camping 20x LED lights,
each use 4 AA cells
During a recent power outage i use 4 of them to light my living room.

Nowhere near enough light for everyday use, but I'm sure a dozen of them
mounted on the ceiling would be.

Steve Terry

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...


You mean irrelevant in a manner that means that a trivial passenger/mile
figure hides the rather more important stuff behind it? Right...

If you think something important is being hidden then you had better tell us
what it is.

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:15:07 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

Personally I would fit about 20 or so small flush-fitting 5W LED units
into the ceiling of a medium size room. It would provide an
*extremely* bright but glare-free room (when needed) and an even,
shadow-free light. Dimming can be achieved by not having them all
switched on, which also has the advantage of allowing part of the room
to be bright (perhaps for reading) and another part dim (for TV
viewing).

Aren't LEDs really good at being dimmed anyway? (with appropriate drivers).
Better than switching some off, surely?

It's your choice. I *think* that switching off some of the lights
would be slightly more energy efficient than dimming, and it also
allows you to light only the parts of the room that you need to light.

--
Cynic

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
John Rumm wrote:
Mr X wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
news The actual UK voltage has not changed - only the nominal spec
voltage and the limits. Hence the UK remains in spec at 240V

232 when I last did it.

It will vary with location and load. Its usually about 237V here. The
various suppliers will aim to deliver to the majority of properties at
about 240V. Obviously that can mean in practice that the house nearest
the substation is getting close to 250 and the one at the far end of a
LV cable can be quite a bit lower.

We are 50m from a substation & get 252 on average.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk


I have a substation in my garden and get about 250V on average.

Adam

"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 28 Aug, 21:12, "dennis@home" wrote:
There was one guy on the radio that claimed barges were better as they
only
used a gallon an hour, but they do only do three miles per hour.

Most car journeys journeys are less than two miles.


???

dennis@home wrote:

Ships use so much more fuel per passenger mile that they just don't come
into the equation.

If you're carting an entire five star hotel around at the same time, yes.

I wonder what the stats are for a large passenger ferry.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

The same goes for traffic lights. There is a traffic light
controlled roundabout near here and if you are in the R/H lane, you
can not see the colour of the light until the last minute, because
of the angle the lights are presented to the driver. (You can't see
the stop lines until the last minute either, because of the contour
of the road.)

That would be to slow you down.
You have to slow down to see if its ok to go.

What about those lights on roundabouts that are only in use at certain
times of day?


You have to slow down to see if its ok.

Why slow down if the traffic light is not presented to you?

Dave

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:17:58 +0100, Cherry Chapstick
wrote:

Spacecraft are potentially the most fuel-efficient mode of transport
in terms of passenger-miles per gallon of fuel.

I don't see any numbers there relating to spacecraft and pm per
gallon. I don't see any information there, either, that can convert
the solid rocket fuel into a 'gallon of fuel' equivalent. Perhaps I
am being short sighted.

You are. A spacecraft can travel forever at millions of miles per
hour on no fuel whatsoever. Therefore it must be *potentially* the
most fuel efficient method of transport. I chucked it in my post as a
semi-humerous observation, but with the serious point that such
comparisons are not always a valid way of looking at things.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:25:16 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Do you get a free set of night vision binoculars with every cwt. of
LED lamps ?

You obviously have no idea whatsoever of what is available today.

Well quite, hence the question.

You made a sarcastic comment, it was not put as a serious question.

Perhaps a few pointers to what you
consider to be the best of breed examples of LED lighting?

I have a vested interest so it would be unfair of me to make any
specific recommendations.

--
Cynic

Dave wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

The same goes for traffic lights. There is a traffic light
controlled roundabout near here and if you are in the R/H lane,
you can not see the colour of the light until the last minute,
because of the angle the lights are presented to the driver. (You
can't see the stop lines until the last minute either, because of
the contour of the road.)

That would be to slow you down.
You have to slow down to see if its ok to go.

What about those lights on roundabouts that are only in use at
certain times of day?


You have to slow down to see if its ok.

Why slow down if the traffic light is not presented to you?

Otherwise Dennis would run down the man with the red flag walking in front
of him.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk