Head Torch
 

I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

Head Torch
 

"GB" wrote in message
...
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and the
tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

Maybe because it has a reflector so the light is all directed one way,
whereas a fluorescent tube is all round (apart from where the fitting is).

Head Torch
 

In article ,
GB wrote:
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

What it doesn't say is the battery life on full power. It says 4 hours
from a couple of 18650 batteries which will be 3.7v and around 2500 mAhr.
Which suggests about 5 watt consumption then - perhaps one of the smaller
LEDs.

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

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

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 10:58, GB wrote:
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

I think lumens is the total amount of light coming from something, so it
must be lies.

Bill

Head Torch
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:58:17 +0100, GB
wrote:

I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

The 'Tech Details' seem very confused, going from 5 to 6k lumens, it
running on 2 x AAA or 2 x 18650 batteries, a sound level of 5dB and
that batteries aren't required or included?

I'll stick with my little Petzl headlight. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 11:08, NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

Maybe because it has a reflector so the light is all directed one way,
whereas a fluorescent tube is all round (apart from where the fitting is).


Lumens are defined as the light per unit of solid angle. So, focusing
the same amount of light into a tight beam does indeed increase the
lumens. Still...

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 10:58, GB wrote:
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

The same lies as the 12v amplifier I bought last year. Claims 500 watts,
utter piffle i'd rate it at 5 Watts which was perfect for my application.

Mike

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 12:59, GB wrote:
On 02/07/2018 11:08, NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

Maybe because it has a reflector so the light is all directed one way,
whereas a fluorescent tube is all round (apart from where the fitting
is).


Lumens are defined as the light per unit of solid angle. So, focusing
the same amount of light into a tight beam does indeed increase the
lumens. Still...

I may be mistaken but my memory is that lumens are a measure of the
total output (flux). The measure of the "brightness" of a focused beam
is it's luminous intensity, for which the unit is candela (lumens per
steradian). So the ad is unsurprisingly ********.

It's a bit counter-intuitive because a candela comes from the light from
a candle - but the _intensity_ of the candle, not its _total_ flux.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 14:16, Robin wrote:
On 02/07/2018 12:59, GB wrote:
On 02/07/2018 11:08, NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more,
and the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

Maybe because it has a reflector so the light is all directed one
way, whereas a fluorescent tube is all round (apart from where the
fitting is).


Lumens are defined as the light per unit of solid angle. So, focusing
the same amount of light into a tight beam does indeed increase the
lumens. Still...

I may be mistaken but my memory is that lumens are a measure of the
total output (flux).Â* The measure of the "brightness" of a focused beam
is it's luminous intensity, for which the unit is candela (lumens per
steradian).Â* So the ad is unsurprisingly ********.

I thought much the same as you, but checked it before I wrote the above.

Lumen = the SI unit of luminous flux, equal to the amount of light
emitted per second in a unit solid angle of one steradian from a uniform
source of one candela.

Of course, you are right in practice, because you very rarely need to
illuminate a tiny spot with intense light whilst leaving everything else
in darkness.

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 14:30, GB wrote:
On 02/07/2018 14:16, Robin wrote:
On 02/07/2018 12:59, GB wrote:
On 02/07/2018 11:08, NY wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more,
and the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

Maybe because it has a reflector so the light is all directed one
way, whereas a fluorescent tube is all round (apart from where the
fitting is).


Lumens are defined as the light per unit of solid angle. So, focusing
the same amount of light into a tight beam does indeed increase the
lumens. Still...

I may be mistaken but my memory is that lumens are a measure of the
total output (flux).Â* The measure of the "brightness" of a focused
beam is it's luminous intensity, for which the unit is candela (lumens
per steradian).Â* So the ad is unsurprisingly ********.

I thought much the same as you, but checked itÂ* before I wrote the above.

Lumen = the SI unit of luminous flux, equal to the amount of light
emitted per second in a unit solid angle of one steradian from a uniform
source of one candela.

Yes, that's why I said it's counter-intuitive. Let's try starting with
the definition you quote:

"Lumen = the amount of light emitted per second in a unit solid angle of
one steradian from a uniform source of one candela"

4 Pi lumens = the amount of light emitted per second from a uniform
source of one candela

8 Pi lumens = the amount of light emitted per second from a uniform
source of 2 candela

etc.

Now suppose all the light from the sources is focused by a mirror so it
is emitted over a hemisphere. Has the total amount of light emitted
increased because it's now all emitted into 2 Pi sr? Or is it that the
intensity has increased?

But it may be clearer at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_intensity
























Of course, you are right in practice, because you very rarely need to
illuminate a tiny spot with intense light whilst leaving everything else
in darkness.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Head Torch
 

In article ,
GB wrote:
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

What it doesn't say is the battery life on full power. It says 4 hours
from a couple of 18650 batteries which will be 3.7v and around 2500 mAhr.
Which suggests about 5 watt consumption then - perhaps one of the smaller
LEDs.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

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

Head Torch
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:51:07 +0100, Muddymike
wrote:

On 02/07/2018 10:58, GB wrote:
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000 lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

The same lies as the 12v amplifier I bought last year. Claims 500 watts,
utter piffle i'd rate it at 5 Watts which was perfect for my application.

I love it, 'Peak music power' and both channels added together. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Head Torch
 

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:15:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:51:07 +0100, Muddymike
wrote:

On 02/07/2018 10:58, GB wrote:
I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

That exceeds the output from a 5 foot fluorescent tube, which seems
unlikely. I know LEDs are more efficient, but not that much more, and
the tube is consuming 60w.

What's going on? Lies?

The same lies as the 12v amplifier I bought last year. Claims 500 watts,
utter piffle i'd rate it at 5 Watts which was perfect for my
application.

I love it, 'Peak music power' and both channels added together. ;-)

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Head Torch
 

On 2 Jul 2018 17:14:44 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:15:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:51:07 +0100, Muddymike
wrote:
snip

The same lies as the 12v amplifier I bought last year. Claims 500 watts,
utter piffle i'd rate it at 5 Watts which was perfect for my
application.

I love it, 'Peak music power' and both channels added together. ;-)

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

Or Amstrad or many others sold on the markets. ;-)

Even the amps sold as '20W RMS' wasn't much use less they gave you
into what speaker impedance?

Cheers, T i m

Head Torch
 

My experience of decent LED torches which run on one 18650 battery is that they get very hot when outputting 1,000 lumens and run for less than an hour so 6,000 lumens sounds distinctly dodgy.

Head Torch
 

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 18:54:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On 2 Jul 2018 17:14:44 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:15:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:51:07 +0100, Muddymike
wrote:
snip

The same lies as the 12v amplifier I bought last year. Claims 500
watts,
utter piffle i'd rate it at 5 Watts which was perfect for my
application.

I love it, 'Peak music power' and both channels added together. ;-)

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

Or Amstrad or many others sold on the markets. ;-)

Amstrad wasn't around when I was selling the Sinclair stuff!

And then there's the 'Tokyo second'. Longer than the standard second.
Used to market dot matrix printers in the 1980s.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Head Torch
 

On 2 Jul 2018 20:21:01 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

snip

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

Or Amstrad or many others sold on the markets. ;-)

Amstrad wasn't around when I was selling the Sinclair stuff!

Oooh, what stuff did you sell? All the electronics, the kits, the C5?

I built several of the ZX81 kits (and got a load more working for
others) and the Micromatic Radio. A mate built their calculator and
assembled the Black Watch.

And then there's the 'Tokyo second'. Longer than the standard second.
Used to market dot matrix printers in the 1980s.

Hehe.

Cheers, T i m

Head Torch
 

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 21:28:37 +0100, T i m wrote:

On 2 Jul 2018 20:21:01 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

snip

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

Or Amstrad or many others sold on the markets. ;-)

Amstrad wasn't around when I was selling the Sinclair stuff!

Oooh, what stuff did you sell? All the electronics, the kits, the C5?

Much earlier. The Micro-6, Micro-FM, Micromatic. And the PWM amplifiers,
which definitely had optimistic power ratings. And didn't work well.
Think that was also connected with the Stereo 25.

I stopped all that in about 1968.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Head Torch
 

On 2 Jul 2018 20:40:36 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 21:28:37 +0100, T i m wrote:

On 2 Jul 2018 20:21:01 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

snip

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

Or Amstrad or many others sold on the markets. ;-)

Amstrad wasn't around when I was selling the Sinclair stuff!

Oooh, what stuff did you sell? All the electronics, the kits, the C5?

Much earlier. The Micro-6, Micro-FM, Micromatic.

Cool. ;-)

And the PWM amplifiers,
which definitely had optimistic power ratings.

;-)

And didn't work well.

Was that down to poor design, or underspeced components (or possibly
both)?

Think that was also connected with the Stereo 25.

I don't remember the audio products I have to admit.

I stopped all that in about 1968.

I still have most of my Sinclair computers (ZX81, Spectrums, QL) and
my C5 (waiting till such things come into fashion and with all the
congestion charging and low emission zones that are coming in that
might not be so long now). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Head Torch
 

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 22:25:48 +0100, T i m wrote:

On 2 Jul 2018 20:40:36 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
Much earlier. The Micro-6, Micro-FM, Micromatic.

Cool. ;-)

And the PWM amplifiers,
which definitely had optimistic power ratings.

;-)

And didn't work well.

Was that down to poor design, or underspeced components (or possibly
both)?

Both, I think.

Think that was also connected with the Stereo 25.

I don't remember the audio products I have to admit.

I stopped all that in about 1968.

I still have most of my Sinclair computers (ZX81, Spectrums, QL) and my
C5 (waiting till such things come into fashion and with all the
congestion charging and low emission zones that are coming in that might
not be so long now). ;-)

I only have a ZX81 that I was given. Earliest complete 'real' hardware
that I have. (I have parts from the Atlas, ICL 4130, ICL 2960 ...)

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Head Torch
 

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On 2 Jul 2018 17:14:44 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:15:56 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:51:07 +0100, Muddymike
wrote:
snip

The same lies as the 12v amplifier I bought last year. Claims 500
watts, utter piffle i'd rate it at 5 Watts which was perfect for my
application.

I love it, 'Peak music power' and both channels added together. ;-)

Otherwise known as 'Sinclair watts'.

Or Amstrad or many others sold on the markets. ;-)

Even the amps sold as '20W RMS' wasn't much use less they gave you
into what speaker impedance?

They're still at it in the ICE industry. Quoted power output usually about
4 times the RMS into 4 ohms.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

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

Head Torch
 

GB wrote:

Lumens are defined as the light per unit of solid angle. So, focusing
the same amount of light into a tight beam does indeed increase the
lumens. Still...

I thought Lumens was Lumens (probably should be lowercase) and if you
wanted to include the angle they were spread over, it was something like
lumens per steradian?

Head Torch
 

Bill Wright wrote:

On 02/07/2018 10:58, GB wrote:

I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

What's going on? Lies?

I think lumens is the total amount of light coming from something, so it
must be lies.

I think 6000 lumens is lies. I have a Fenix LED torch, powered by a
single 4.2V 4800mAh 26650 cell, Cree spec sheets say the LED used has a
peak power consumption of 18W, which gives 1600 lumens, it's about as
bright as a halogen headlamp.

For that headtorch, Cree's spec say each LED is 1040 lumens, so 3120
total and I'd expect that to melt your forehead in pretty short order ...

Head Torch
 

On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:10:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Even the amps sold as '20W RMS' wasn't much use less they gave you
into what speaker impedance?

They're still at it in the ICE industry. Quoted power output usually about
4 times the RMS into 4 ohms.

So how are they allowed to get away with it?

False advertising / trading standards?

Cheers, T i m

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/2018 00:32, Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

On 02/07/2018 10:58, GB wrote:

I was just looking at this head torch, which claims to output 6000
lumens.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B078NCZ6KC?

What's going on? Lies?

I think lumens is the total amount of lighyt coming from something, so
it must be lies.

I think 6000 lumens is lies. I have a Fenix LED torch, powered by a
single 4.2V 4800mAh 26650 cell, Cree spec sheets say the LED used has a
peak power consumption of 18W, which gives 1600 lumens, it's about as
bright as a halogen headlamp.

For that headtorch, Cree's spec say each LED is 1040 lumens, so 3120
total and I'd expect that to melt your forehead in pretty short order ...

The 1040 lumens figure is probably specified at 25C which suggests it's
only achievable when attached to a very large heat-sink. I doubt if the
typical forehead is a suitable heat-sink.

I would also be a bit worried about supplying that much power from 2 x
18650 batteries strapped to the back of your head.

I have a couple of (Chinese) "Cree" mini torches that take the shorter
lithium 14500 3.7V 1600mAh[1] battery. They provide a very bright light
for all of 3 or 4 minutes before the all metal casing gets rather hot
and the light output falls of dramatically. I'm not sure if its the LED
trying to ditch heat or the battery warming up to trying to supply the
power. I also have the much larger models of these torches with the
18650 1800mAh[1] 3.7V battery that don't seem to have this problem
possibly because the all metal case is substantially larger providing a
better heat-sink.

[1] Chinese specification for many of these no-name batteries, which is
often BS. Ebay lists 14500 anywhere between 750mAh and 2600mAH - I
suspect that the former figure is somewhat closer to the truth.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Head Torch
 

On 02/07/2018 15:15, T i m wrote:

I love it, 'Peak music power' and both channels added together. ;-)


and when driven to 100% total harmonic distortion!


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/2018 00:33, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:10:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Even the amps sold as '20W RMS' wasn't much use less they gave you
into what speaker impedance?

They're still at it in the ICE industry. Quoted power output usually about
4 times the RMS into 4 ohms.

So how are they allowed to get away with it?

False advertising / trading standards?

What about sweets with 30% less sugar. They just make them 30% smaller.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Head Torch
 

alan_m wrote:

On 03/07/2018 00:33, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:10:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

False advertising / trading standards?

What about sweets with 30% less sugar. They just make them 30% smaller.

A rash of stickers reading:

"Different pack size, Great regular price."

That's Sainsbury's way to let you know shrinkflation is at work.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/2018 07:53, Chris J Dixon wrote:
alan_m wrote:

On 03/07/2018 00:33, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:10:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

False advertising / trading standards?

What about sweets with 30% less sugar. They just make them 30% smaller.

A rash of stickers reading:

"Different pack size, Great regular price."

That's Sainsbury's way to let you know shrinkflation is at work.

Chris


I also see the sugar tax is working well for "branded" fizzy drinks. The
price has risen for both full sugar and diet variants so that there is
no differential in price and no financial incentive to change from the
variety that has the equivalent of 20 cubes of sugar per litre.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Head Torch
 

alan_m wrote:

I also see the sugar tax is working well for "branded" fizzy drinks.

Certainly the acreage of aisle-space dedicated to them has shrunk.

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/18 08:36, alan_m wrote:
On 03/07/2018 07:53, Chris J Dixon wrote:
alan_m wrote:

On 03/07/2018 00:33, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:10:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

False advertising / trading standards?

What about sweets with 30% less sugar.Â* They just make them 30% smaller.

A rash of stickers reading:

"Different pack size, Great regular price."

That's Sainsbury's way to let you know shrinkflation is at work.

Chris


I also see the sugar tax is working well for "branded" fizzy drinks. The
price has risen for both full sugar and diet variants so that there is
no differential in price and no financial incentive to change from the
variety that has the equivalent of 20 cubes of sugar per litre.



You're right - 4 pack Red Bull, Sainsbury's website, identical price for
diet/non diet. Larger boxes do have differentiation, but most people I
suspect buy 4 packs or singles.

Head Torch
 

Tim Watts wrote:

alan_m wrote:

I also see the sugar tax is working well for "branded" fizzy drinks.
The price has risen for both full sugar and diet variants so that
there is no differential in price and no financial incentive to change
from the variety that has the equivalent of 20 cubes of sugar per litre.

You're right - 4 pack Red Bull, Sainsbury's website, identical price for
diet/non diet. Larger boxes do have differentiation, but most people I
suspect buy 4 packs or singles.

I remember there was a hoo-ha about Iron Brew, where they had the
original version, a diet version and had introduced a zero sugar
version, which wasn't well received and people were stockpiling the
original version.

So I was similarly surprised to see all theree versions on offer at £1 a
bottle, for some reason I took a look at the label, to find that even
the full-fat version is now below the 5% sugar threshold ...

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/18 10:16, Andy Burns wrote:

I remember there was a hoo-ha about Iron Brew, where they had the
original version, a diet version and had introduced a zero sugar
version, which wasn't well received and people were stockpiling the
original version.

So I was similarly surprised to see all theree versions on offer at £1 a
bottle, for some reason I took a look at the label, to find that even
the full-fat version is now below the 5% sugar threshold ...

There's just so much bull**** around at the moment, I'm literally
calling it our every other day...

The one that's really got my goat recently is this utter bullcrap over
many shops age limiting caffinated drinks like Red Bull...

whilst at the SAME time putting in more and more self service checkouts
that are covered by a bloke who wanders off to do something else all the
time, leaving people waiting to get their lunch "authorised*.

It's complete bullcrap...

Head Torch
 

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:10:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

Even the amps sold as '20W RMS' wasn't much use less they gave you
into what speaker impedance?

They're still at it in the ICE industry. Quoted power output usually
about 4 times the RMS into 4 ohms.

So how are they allowed to get away with it?

False advertising / trading standards?

I was told it's what the ICE public want and expect. ;-)

If everyone in ICE uses the same standard, at least you can compare
various offerings.

--
*Laugh alone and the world thinks you're an idiot.

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

Head Torch
 

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The one that's really got my goat recently is this utter bullcrap over
many shops age limiting caffinated drinks like Red Bull...

whilst at the SAME time putting in more and more self service checkouts
that are covered by a bloke who wanders off to do something else all the
time, leaving people waiting to get their lunch "authorised*.

I like the occasional Beck's Blue. Zero alcohol - but to me the best of
the zero alcohol 'beers'. But at Tesco, it has to be authorised. ;-)

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

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

Head Torch
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

I like the occasional Beck's Blue. Zero alcohol - but to me the best of
the zero alcohol 'beers'.

It and similar 0.0% beers are OK on occasion, can't take a whole night
on them without losing the taste for them though.

But at Tesco, it has to be authorised. ;-)

While any schoolkid can buy up to 0.5% shandy without approval ...

Head Torch
 

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I like the occasional Beck's Blue. Zero alcohol - but to me the best of
the zero alcohol 'beers'.

It and similar 0.0% beers are OK on occasion, can't take a whole night
on them without losing the taste for them though.

Well, quite. Much the same as drinking alcohol free wine etc. No point in
drinking a lot of it. ;-)

But at Tesco, it has to be authorised. ;-)

While any schoolkid can buy up to 0.5% shandy without approval ...

I'd guess it's having a barcode that tells the machine it's from the
alcohol aisle.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

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

Head Torch
 

Tim Watts wrote:

this utter bullcrap over many shops age limiting caffinated drinks like
Red Bull

Maybe they should ask all women who appear to be of child-bearing age
whether they are breast feeding, since the can also says it's unsuitable
for them ... watch the uproar on mumsnet.

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/18 14:05, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

I like the occasional Beck's Blue. Zero alcohol - but to me the best of
the zero alcohol 'beers'.

It and similar 0.0% beers are OK on occasion, can't take a whole night
on them without losing the taste for them though.

But at Tesco, it has to be authorised. ;-)

While any schoolkid can buy up to 0.5% shandy without approval ...



Really? That is amusing :)

I used to be able to buy liqueur chocolates when I was a lad - enough to
notice the effect.

Head Torch
 

On 03/07/18 15:56, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

this utter bullcrap over many shops age limiting caffinated drinks
like Red Bull

Maybe they should ask all women who appear to be of child-bearing age
whether they are breast feeding, since the can also says it's unsuitable
for them ... watch the uproar on mumsnet.


sssh - don't give then ideas...

A Sussex school has recently banned skirts on some nefarious excuse - so
this is the level of derangement currently operating.