On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:19:58 -0000, gregz wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:55:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


don't see any. Designers really ought to account for those of us with
better eyesight.

No point in doing that.

It's really psychiatrists who should look after folk with damaged brains
like the two of you! LOL

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:55:13 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

There is when half the population is capable of seeing it. Why only sell things suitable for those with ****ty eyesight? If you can't see the flicker that I can, then your eyes aren't as good as mine.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 10:09:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll**** unread

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and
senile Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

Senile Rot: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky ****, but then why does vegetarian human **** stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rot: "Nope, some cow **** stinks too."

Message-ID:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:09:51 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

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

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

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

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

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



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



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

wrote:



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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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

wrote:



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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

wrote:



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

wrote:



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

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

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

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

wrote:

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

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

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

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

Maybe use a dual trace oscilloscope?

Haven't got one unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

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

Easily measured.

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

I see more than you do.

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

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

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

It is better to see what is really there.

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

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

MID:

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

FLUSH yet more troll****

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

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

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



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



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



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

wrote:



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

wrote:

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

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

Precisely what I said, with a different name.

Easily measured.

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

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

I see more than you do.

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

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

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

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

It is better to see what is really there.

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

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

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

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

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

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

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

..

merry christmas , fat head

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



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



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

wrote:



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

wrote:



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

wrote:

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

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

Precisely what I said,

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

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

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

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

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

I see more than you do.

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

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

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

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

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

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

Much worse in fact with car lights.

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

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

It is better to see what is really there.

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

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

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

There is no equivalent for leds.

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

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

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

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

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

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

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

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

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

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

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

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

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

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

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

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

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

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

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

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MID:

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



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



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



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

wrote:



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

wrote:



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

wrote:

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

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

Precisely what I said,

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

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

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

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

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

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

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

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

I see more than you do.

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

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

I don't prefer or don't see?

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

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

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

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

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

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

Much worse in fact with car lights.

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

It is better to see what is really there.

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

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

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

There is no equivalent for leds.

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

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

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

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

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

It's reality.

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

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

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

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

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

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

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

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

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

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

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

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

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

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

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

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

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

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

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

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



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



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

wrote:



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

wrote:



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

wrote:



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

wrote:

No point in doing that.

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

Half the population isnt.

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

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

Your eyes are clearly operating more slowly,

Nope, just a lower flicker fusion threshold

at a lower frame rate.

Eyes don't have a frame rate.

The eyes and the brain together have a frame rate.

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

Precisely what I said,

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

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

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

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

They actually do that continuously, no frame rate.

with a different name.

Wrong, as always.

Easily measured.

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

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

No point given only freaks see any flicker.

It only takes one to cause an accident,

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

and there's a lot of them.

Sure.

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

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

Why would you call someone with better eyes a freak?

Worse eyes when you see flicker with car lights.

No, I see what's really there.

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

I see more than you do.

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

I prefer to see reality

You don't with the higher flicker rates.

I don't prefer or don't see?

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

than something your brain made up.

You're stuck with that anyway.

My brain shows me what I can see

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

and doesn't lie like yours.

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

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

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

Nothing whatever to do with video cameras.

It's the same thing entirely.

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

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

Much worse in fact with car lights.

I don't want to be fooled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing good about eyes that see flicker everywhere.

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

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

But they are flickering.

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

It is better to see what is really there.

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

they should be made properly.

No point in pandering to freaks.

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

There is no equivalent for leds.

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

What other things are you missing in life?

None with the flicker fusion threshold.

Your eyes must be taking longer to notice things changing.

I don't miss flicker, its useless information.

It's reality.

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

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

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

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

Only by milliseconds.

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

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

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

Only the cheap ones **** me off.

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

There are plenty cars which have decent LEDs.

None flicker for me.

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

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

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

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

Wrong, as always with movies in movie theaters.

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

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

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

What's the actual name for it?

There is no it with lcds.

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

That's an entirely different persistence, lasts forever.

No it doesn't.

Screen burn does.

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

That's not screen burn.

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

Real screen burn does.

....and nothing's left!

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