|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2005 > LED lights
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| I have seen in articles that white LED lights use less power than regular
lightbulbs. Nearly always, they say something like "much more efficient
than incandescent." But when you look up the specs, they usually work out
to 12-20 lumens per watt. That's not better than incandescents at all.
What gives?
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-12-11, 6:21 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
> I have seen in articles that white LED lights use less power than regular
> lightbulbs. Nearly always, they say something like "much more efficient
> than incandescent." But when you look up the specs, they usually work out
> to 12-20 lumens per watt. That's not better than incandescents at all.
> What gives?
All lights are not created equal. The incandescent bulbs used in
flashlights are many times less efficient than 60W (and up) bulbs.
This means that you can replace a flashlight bulb with a white LED
and it'll run off the batteries a lot longer. You can't replace a
60W incandescent room light or 100W halogen fixture with LED and
expect to save any energy.
Single color LED is much more efficient than white versions so for
places that you would use an incandescent with a color filter (turn
signals, brake lights, stop lights, etc.) you'll save lots using
LEDs.
Anthony
| |
| m Ransley 2005-12-11, 9:21 am |
| White leds were apx 18 lpw max a year ago , now I hear 70 Lpw are out
and 110 Lpw designs are working. I think alot of sales is lies, but soon
people will benefit from efficient Leds, but at what price. Now T8 tube
is best for home use. In the future who knows.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-11, 11:21 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
> I have seen in articles that white LED lights use less power than regular
> lightbulbs. Nearly always, they say something like "much more efficient
> than incandescent." But when you look up the specs, they usually work out
> to 12-20 lumens per watt. That's not better than incandescents at all.
> What gives?
>
>
You just uncovered marketing's dirty laundry. More efficient for task
lighting, not more "electrically" efficient. For reading a book, an
incandescent is overkill, the wrong tool for the job. LED's are
directional, perfect for putting a small amount of light right where
it's needed.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| JoeSP 2005-12-11, 12:21 pm |
|
"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2oednQADs9B5cwbenZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> All lights are not created equal. The incandescent bulbs used in
> flashlights are many times less efficient than 60W (and up) bulbs.
> This means that you can replace a flashlight bulb with a white LED
> and it'll run off the batteries a lot longer. You can't replace a
> 60W incandescent room light or 100W halogen fixture with LED and
> expect to save any energy.
The only reason an LED lasts longer in a flashlight than an incandescent
bulb, is because as the incandescent bulb dims, resistance in the filament
becomes less and less, speeding up the battery discharge. An LED bulb will
stay lit much longer as the battery dies, albeit at a lower light output.
It also remains the same white color, not a reddish yellow as the battery
dies out.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-12, 10:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> All lights are not created equal. The incandescent bulbs used in
> flashlights are many times less efficient than 60W (and up) bulbs.
> This means that you can replace a flashlight bulb with a white LED
> and it'll run off the batteries a lot longer. You can't replace a
> 60W incandescent room light or 100W halogen fixture with LED and
> expect to save any energy.
>
> Single color LED is much more efficient than white versions so for
> places that you would use an incandescent with a color filter (turn
> signals, brake lights, stop lights, etc.) you'll save lots using
> LEDs.
Plus longevity of the bulb - one reason why everybody is using LEDs for
traffic signals these days.
My LED flashlights definitely don't get the power output that my big
incandescent lantern does, but I only replace the batteries (2 D cells)
twice a year as opposed to every month (the big square 6V battery).
--
derek
| |
|
| Another issue is that standard 5mm LED's, while they may 'go' for 100,000
hours, their light output degrades quite quickly- in the order of 30% after
9000 hours and this degradation continues past this time frame. Google
'LED degradation' for some 7,000,000 pages!
OzDave
www.rpc.com.au
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:8NQmf.145934$S4.9307@edtnps84...
>I have seen in articles that white LED lights use less power than regular
>lightbulbs. Nearly always, they say something like "much more efficient
>than incandescent." But when you look up the specs, they usually work out
>to 12-20 lumens per watt. That's not better than incandescents at all.
>What gives?
>
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-12, 8:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Plus longevity of the bulb - one reason why everybody is using LEDs for
> traffic signals these days.
>
> My LED flashlights definitely don't get the power output that my big
> incandescent lantern does, but I only replace the batteries (2 D cells)
> twice a year as opposed to every month (the big square 6V battery).
I installed LED nightlights throughout the house. The battery pack
barely knows they are there.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| JoeSP 2005-12-12, 10:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:439e0a51$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> I installed LED nightlights throughout the house. The battery pack barely
> knows they are there.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
Your point being? Low lumens per watt mean less than your own opinion that
they are very efficient?
| |
| Vaughn 2005-12-12, 10:21 pm |
|
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Wppnf.144481$y_1.140088@edtnps89...
>
> Your point being?
And your point is?
> Low lumens per watt mean less than your own opinion that they are very
> efficient?
The only thing that I can think of in that size, and for that use (night
light) that would be more efficient than LEDs might be small neons or perhaps
cold cathode, but both of those take an inconvenient voltage.
Vaughn
>
>
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-12-13, 6:21 am |
|
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Wppnf.144481$y_1.140088@edtnps89...
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:439e0a51$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> Your point being? Low lumens per watt mean less than your own opinion
> that they are very efficient?
Lumens per watt is lighting effeciency.....are you saying LEDS are not
effecient?
>
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-13, 10:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> I installed LED nightlights throughout the house. The battery pack
> barely knows they are there.
Yeah, we have one of those - something like 0.04W, iirc.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-13, 10:21 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:439e0a51$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> Your point being? Low lumens per watt mean less than your own opinion
> that they are very efficient?
The point that both Steve and I made is that you choose your lights with the
purpose in mind. If all you want is a nightlight, you want simply the
lowest possible wattage - because maximum lumens is not only
inconsequential, some studies have shown that even the light output from an
incandescent night light can be detrimental to your health. If you want a
reading lamp, small CFs are perfect. If you want to light the bathroom
mirror, wattage becomes almost pointless - it doesn't matter how much power
you've saved if your wife says it makes her skin look green!
--
derek
| |
| JoeSP 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
|
"Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1134466009_87985@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:Wppnf.144481$y_1.140088@edtnps89...
> Lumens per watt is lighting effeciency.....are you saying LEDS are not
> effecient?
Of course I'm saying that about white LEDs. Haven't you ever looked up the
specs? Or are you content to believe the myth that they are all equally
efficient and use almost no power?
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:439e0a51$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>
>
> Your point being? Low lumens per watt mean less than your own opinion that
> they are very efficient?
>
>
My point is that they use less electricity than a standard nightlight,
and I'm saving watts. incandescents are less appropriate for that
particular usage, LEDS are more so.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
| Arnold Walker wrote:
> "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:Wppnf.144481$y_1.140088@edtnps89...
>
>
> Lumens per watt is lighting effeciency.....are you saying LEDS are not
> effecient?
of course, but they are appropriate in certain task lighting (and
instrumentation) situations due to their minuscule power draw (and
corresponding minuscule lumen output). LED's have similar efficiency
(lumens per watt) to incandescents.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| JoeSP 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:439ee2f4_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Arnold Walker wrote:
>
> of course, but they are appropriate in certain task lighting (and
> instrumentation) situations due to their minuscule power draw (and
> corresponding minuscule lumen output). LED's have similar efficiency
> (lumens per watt) to incandescents.
>
I see. So when the power draw is small, it's the same thing as being more
efficient.
Anything is better than being proven wrong.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> JoeSP wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The point that both Steve and I made is that you choose your lights with the
> purpose in mind. If all you want is a nightlight, you want simply the
> lowest possible wattage - because maximum lumens is not only
> inconsequential, some studies have shown that even the light output from an
> incandescent night light can be detrimental to your health. If you want a
> reading lamp, small CFs are perfect. If you want to light the bathroom
> mirror, wattage becomes almost pointless - it doesn't matter how much power
> you've saved if your wife says it makes her skin look green!
Bingo!
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| JoeSP 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:439ee215_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> My point is that they use less electricity than a standard nightlight, and
> I'm saving watts. incandescents are less appropriate for that particular
> usage, LEDS are more so.
>
But did you consider that the reason they use less than an incandescent is
because they put out less light? You just can't get away from the fact that
white LEDs aren't more efficient than incandescents. Your constant attempts
on the "last word" on everything doesn't make you right, it just reveals
how little you actually know before you profess great knowledge on the
subject.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 11:22 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
> "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> news:1134466009_87985@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
>
>
> Of course I'm saying that about white LEDs. Haven't you ever looked up the
> specs? Or are you content to believe the myth that they are all equally
> efficient and use almost no power?
>
>
You are confused. All LED's have similar efficiency to incandescents. No
one has claimed LED's are efficient.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 12:21 pm |
| JoeSP wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:439ee2f4_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>
>
> I see. So when the power draw is small, it's the same thing as being more
> efficient.
> Anything is better than being proven wrong.
>
>
No, it's not the same as being more efficient, it's being more
appropriate to the task.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 12:21 pm |
| JoeSP wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:439ee215_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>
>
> But did you consider that the reason they use less than an incandescent is
> because they put out less light?
I said that already.
You just can't get away from the fact that
> white LEDs aren't more efficient than incandescents.
I said that already. No LED is more efficient than a incandescent.
Your constant attempts
> on the "last word" on everything doesn't make you right, it just reveals
> how little you actually know before you profess great knowledge on the
> subject.
Just proves you can't read what I posted.
My background is electronics (20+ years), and I happen to have more than
a bit of knowledge on this subject. I am right, you just misread
everything I posted. Go back and reread, and you will find you are
claiming the very facts I posted.
>
>
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| phatty mo 2005-12-13, 12:21 pm |
| Dave wrote:
> Another issue is that standard 5mm LED's, while they may 'go' for 100,000
> hours, their light output degrades quite quickly- in the order of 30% after
> 9000 hours and this degradation continues past this time frame. Google
> 'LED degradation' for some 7,000,000 pages!
>
> OzDave
> www.rpc.com.au
>
Meh,so they lose 30% after more than a year,if you were to leave them on
24/7.If you only switch them on for 12 hours each night,that's two
years.(assuming turning them on/off doesn't shorten thier life
somehow.).Personally,I wouldn't much care if they went slightly dim,or
dead completely after 2 years,they only cost a few cents each!
I'm fond of the small CCFL tubes and inverters.I've salvaged a few from
old laptops,and flatbed scanners.They make great little area/work
lights,and most are 12Vdc input.(I think I have a couple that use other
voltages 15,and 24V I think.)They usually only draw a couple hundred
milliamps.(I think some of the larger ones I have draw around 275-300ma)
Plus,you can get the ones for adding to the case of your PC,etc. for
relativly cheap,and in lots of colors,styles,lengths,etc.
And also EL tape,and rope/cord..I'm sure that could make some
interesting night-lights.
Perhaps the neon kits for putting under cars? ;-)
>
>
> "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:8NQmf.145934$S4.9307@edtnps84...
>
>
>
>
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-12-13, 12:21 pm |
|
JoeSP wrote:
> But did you consider that the reason they use less than an incandescent is
> because they put out less light?
Yes, he did. You should work on your reading comprehension.
> You just can't get away from the fact that
> white LEDs aren't more efficient than incandescents.
No has claimed differently. However, I'm going to be the first poster
in the thread to say there are cases where that's not true. Low
wattage incandescent light buld operate less efficiently than higher
wattage bulbs.
"... a 4 or 7 watt 120 volt night light bulb usually has an
efficiency (more accurately, overall luminous efficacy) of only 4 to 6
lumens per watt"
Source: http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
White LEDs do better than that.
> Your constant attempts
> on the "last word" on everything doesn't make you right, it just reveals
> how little you actually know before you profess great knowledge on the
> subject.
Ad hominem to cover your errors.
| |
| vaughnsimon@att.net 2005-12-13, 5:21 pm |
| I have learned a lot from this group, and am prepared to learn
more, so please help me here.
What would you use for a nightlight that runs off of low voltage
and is more appropriate and efficient (for that task) than an LED?
Vaughn
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-12-13, 7:21 pm |
| vaughnsimon@att.net wrote:
> What would you use for a nightlight that runs off of low voltage
>and is more appropriate and efficient (for that task) than an LED?
I can't think of anything more appropriate for a nightlight than an
LED. As others have pointed out, for nightlights you really want low
power and not much brightness, and this is where LEDs excel. In fact,
red LEDs are more efficient and probably less disruptive to your
circadian cycles than other colors...
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-13, 7:21 pm |
| vaughnsimon@att.net wrote:
> I have learned a lot from this group, and am prepared to learn
> more, so please help me here.
>
> What would you use for a nightlight that runs off of low voltage
> and is more appropriate and efficient (for that task) than an LED?
>
> Vaughn
>
Nothing I've found. The LED is the most appropriate for the task.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SolarFlare 2005-12-13, 10:21 pm |
| Does the green skin make your muscles grow huge also?
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
message news:8uu273-l1p.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> The point that both Steve and I made is that you
choose your lights with the
> purpose in mind. If all you want is a nightlight,
you want simply the
> lowest possible wattage - because maximum lumens is
not only
> inconsequential, some studies have shown that even
the light output from an
> incandescent night light can be detrimental to your
health. If you want a
> reading lamp, small CFs are perfect. If you want to
light the bathroom
> mirror, wattage becomes almost pointless - it doesn't
matter how much power
> you've saved if your wife says it makes her skin look
green!
> --
> derek
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-12-13, 11:21 pm |
| William P.N. Smith wrote:
> vaughnsimon@att.net wrote:
>
>
> I can't think of anything more appropriate for a nightlight than an
> LED. As others have pointed out, for nightlights you really want low
> power and not much brightness, and this is where LEDs excel. In fact,
> red LEDs are more efficient and probably less disruptive to your
> circadian cycles than other colors...
I've made the observation that while a red LED might produce more
light/watt than a white LED, the white light is more easily seen
and therefore appears brighter. Looks like moonlight and I guess
the human eye works better with that kind of light. The next best
color would be yellow. If you're making your own lights, yellow
LEDs are a lot less expensive than white.
I wouldn't worry about circadian cycles with night lights, most
especially one or two LED versions. They shouldn't be bright
enough to make a difference.
Anthony
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2005-12-14, 9:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>I've made the observation that while a red LED might produce more
>light/watt than a white LED, the white light is more easily seen
>and therefore appears brighter.
Yeah, but it depends on what you want your nightlight for. If it's
merely for navigation (the bathroom is thataway), then red is probably
OK.
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-14, 10:21 am |
| William P.N. Smith wrote:
> Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, but it depends on what you want your nightlight for. If it's
> merely for navigation (the bathroom is thataway), then red is probably
> OK.
not just where the bathroom is, but aiming issues.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-14, 10:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> I wouldn't worry about circadian cycles with night lights, most
> especially one or two LED versions. They shouldn't be bright
> enough to make a difference.
>
There was a study published a year or two ago that came to rather
frightening conclusions about immune-system stress due to night-time
lighting. Specifically, iirc, they were interested in street lights, but
claimed to see an effect even from use of 5W nightlights. I don't know if
anyone else has verified these results, but I figure it's safer to stick to
even lower output LEDs.
--
derek
| |
| Ulysses 2005-12-14, 5:21 pm |
|
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:MvBnf.146316$y_1.48030@edtnps89...
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:439ee2f4_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
for[color=darkred]
cells)[color=darkred]
>
> I see. So when the power draw is small, it's the same thing as being more
> efficient.
> Anything is better than being proven wrong.
>
>
You must be 10 times smarter than everyone here put together. I'll bet you
wear your college graduation gown and morter hat when you go get the
newspaper in the morning so all your neighbors will know how smart you are.
And your license plate frame says "Genius," right?
Either that or you are a butthead.
| |
| Ulysses 2005-12-14, 5:21 pm |
|
"phatty mo" <ptaylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DSBnf.8$mE5.307@news.uswest.net...
> Dave wrote:
100,000[color=darkred]
after[color=darkred]
Google[color=darkred]
>
>
> Meh,so they lose 30% after more than a year,if you were to leave them on
> 24/7.If you only switch them on for 12 hours each night,that's two
> years.(assuming turning them on/off doesn't shorten thier life
> somehow.).Personally,I wouldn't much care if they went slightly dim,or
> dead completely after 2 years,they only cost a few cents each!
Do you have a source for superbright white LEDs for a few cents each?
>
> I'm fond of the small CCFL tubes and inverters.
They are my first choice for the lights that are left on much of the time
when running from battery power. Incandescents are for when you need some
really bright light for a short period.
I've salvaged a few from
> old laptops,and flatbed scanners.They make great little area/work
> lights,and most are 12Vdc input.(I think I have a couple that use other
> voltages 15,and 24V I think.)They usually only draw a couple hundred
> milliamps.(I think some of the larger ones I have draw around 275-300ma)
I've measured about .46 amps with one 12 inch tube but it turns out the
meter was reading high so this measurment may be a bit high too.
The ones I'm using don't cost very much so I don't feel much of a need to do
the salvaging (but I have). I got mine from www.elwirecheap.com.
I also have some flashlights that use 4 X AA batteries. Unfortunately I
have not found the source for buying only a few 6 volt inverters. I think
they would be just the thing for slapping on the back of a Harbor Fright $10
solar panel making a nice solar-charged lantern. My flashlight will run for
2-3 hours from 4 NiMh cells.
> Plus,you can get the ones for adding to the case of your PC,etc. for
> relativly cheap,and in lots of colors,styles,lengths,etc.
>
> And also EL tape,and rope/cord..I'm sure that could make some
> interesting night-lights.
I'm gonna get some of those some day to play with.
[color=darkred]
> Perhaps the neon kits for putting under cars? ;-)
>
>
regular[color=darkred]
out[color=darkred]
| |
| daestrom 2005-12-14, 6:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43a01c32_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> William P.N. Smith wrote:
>
> not just where the bathroom is, but aiming issues.
>
Can't remember where it was, but saw a nightlight that fit inside the middle
of the lid. When you leave the lid open, it would sense a person
approaching, (sonar??), and would send a sonar beam straight up. If it
found the rim of the 'seat', would turn on 'red' light for 'aiming'. If it
didn't find the rim, it would turn on 'green' so the ladies could seat
themselves and not fall in.
Probably not very efficient or anything, but certainly an unusual 'night
light'. :-)
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2005-12-14, 6:21 pm |
|
"SolarFlare" <sfl.are@hot.mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:kIKdnSHJD7Zk7wLenZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@golden.net...
> Does the green skin make your muscles grow huge also?
>
Only if you make him 'angry'. You wouldn't like it when he's angry. ;-)
daestrom
| |
|
|
| Steve Spence 2005-12-14, 8:21 pm |
| daestrom wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:43a01c32_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>
>
> Can't remember where it was, but saw a nightlight that fit inside the middle
> of the lid. When you leave the lid open, it would sense a person
> approaching, (sonar??), and would send a sonar beam straight up. If it
> found the rim of the 'seat', would turn on 'red' light for 'aiming'. If it
> didn't find the rim, it would turn on 'green' so the ladies could seat
> themselves and not fall in.
>
> Probably not very efficient or anything, but certainly an unusual 'night
> light'. :-)
>
> daestrom
>
>
An old couple go to the doctor. The old man goes first to have his
physical. When the doctor is done with him, he sends the old man back
into the waiting room and calls the old woman in.
The doctor tells her, "Before we proceed with the examination, I would
like to talk to you about your husband first."
The old woman says, "Oh, no, it's his heart. I told him to lay off the
eggs."
The doctor says, "Well, I asked your husband how he is feeling and he
told me he felt great. He said that when he got up to go to the
bathroom, he opened the door and God turned the light on for him."
The old woman responded, "Dang it, he's peeing in the fridge again!"
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SolarFlare 2005-12-14, 8:21 pm |
| Sex lights for the toilet....LOL
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:T70of.30971$XJ5.6605@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
that fit inside the middle[color=darkred]
> of the lid. When you leave the lid open, it would
sense a person
> approaching, (sonar??), and would send a sonar beam
straight up. If it
> found the rim of the 'seat', would turn on 'red'
light for 'aiming'. If it
> didn't find the rim, it would turn on 'green' so the
ladies could seat
> themselves and not fall in.
>
> Probably not very efficient or anything, but
certainly an unusual 'night
> light'. :-)
>
> daestrom
>
>
| |
| Daniel Armstrong 2005-12-14, 9:21 pm |
|
"phatty mo" <ptaylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DSBnf.8$mE5.307@news.uswest.net...
>
> Meh,so they lose 30% after more than a year,if you were to leave them on
> 24/7.If you only switch them on for 12 hours each night,that's two
> years.(assuming turning them on/off doesn't shorten thier life
> somehow.).Personally,I wouldn't much care if they went slightly dim,or
> dead completely after 2 years,they only cost a few cents each!
>
Switching doesn't seem to affect them. The super bright red LED in my
Logitech corded optical mouse gets dimmed when the mouse is not in use by
the controller via a high switching frequency and I am guessing around a 25%
duty cycle probably to extend its life (if I get a multimeter that does
frequency and PWM I will let you know the exact values). It must work well
because I have had this mouse for several years and when the LED is at full
output it hurts my eyes to look directly at it (by turning the mouse upside
down and passing my finger over the lens so the controller kicks it up to
full brightness for 1 second).
| |
|
|
| SolarFlare 2005-12-14, 9:21 pm |
| Gives a whole new meaning to going for a "cold one"
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43a0b0de$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> An old couple go to the doctor. The old man goes
first to have his
> physical. When the doctor is done with him, he sends
the old man back
> into the waiting room and calls the old woman in.
> The doctor tells her, "Before we proceed with the
examination, I would
> like to talk to you about your husband first."
> The old woman says, "Oh, no, it's his heart. I told
him to lay off the
> eggs."
> The doctor says, "Well, I asked your husband how he
is feeling and he
> told me he felt great. He said that when he got up to
go to the
> bathroom, he opened the door and God turned the light
on for him."
>
> The old woman responded, "Dang it, he's peeing in the
fridge again!"
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| Ulysses 2005-12-15, 1:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43a0b031_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Ulysses wrote:
> Personally,I wouldn't much care if they went slightly dim,or
>
> At http://www.mpja.com/listitems.asp?d...main=122&type=1 they have
> the 15,000 mcd's for $1.25 each.
Ok, that's good but does anyone have a source for miscellaneous surplus
components? All Electronics and some others used to sell bags of switches,
capacitors etc but now they seem to think they can make more money by
cateloging each one. There was another place that had "Barrels of
Resistors" etc but I can't find them any more either.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-15, 3:21 pm |
| Ulysses wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
>
>
> Ok, that's good but does anyone have a source for miscellaneous surplus
> components? All Electronics and some others used to sell bags of switches,
> capacitors etc but now they seem to think they can make more money by
> cateloging each one. There was another place that had "Barrels of
> Resistors" etc but I can't find them any more either.
>
25 years ago I used to deal with a company called polypak. Grabbags for
$99. They must be long gone.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Kent Hoult 2005-12-15, 4:21 pm |
| Take a look at these 3 places:
http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/home.asp
http://www.cascadesurplus.com/catalog/index.php
http://www.electronicsurplus.com
-Kent-
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11q368g26rgj00b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:43a0b031_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> Ok, that's good but does anyone have a source for miscellaneous surplus
> components? All Electronics and some others used to sell bags of
> switches,
> capacitors etc but now they seem to think they can make more money by
> cateloging each one. There was another place that had "Barrels of
> Resistors" etc but I can't find them any more either.
>
>
>
| |
| Vaughn 2005-12-15, 8:21 pm |
|
"Ulysses" <therealulysses@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11q10o9nr8en8ac@corp.supernews.com...
>
> You must be 10 times smarter than everyone here put together. I'll bet you
> wear your college graduation gown
Funny, I was picturing a junior high school kid posting out of his bedroom.
Vaughn
>
>
| |
|
|
|
|
|