A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 22nd 18, 12:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

I know this is completely OT, but I was just wondering if anyone has ever
been able to find any outdoor, dusk to dawn, amber colored LED flood lights
(and fixtures), as I can't seem to find any listed anywhere. They would be
used for some gentle security in a residential setting, so those defacto,
bright white, LED lights are not really appropriate in such a setting. It
would be used to replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights
that use a ballast, etc), so the maintenance issues would be negligible,
unlike the current one.


Ads
  #2  
Old October 22nd 18, 12:58 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

Bill in Co wrote:
I know this is completely OT, but I was just wondering if anyone has ever
been able to find any outdoor, dusk to dawn, amber colored LED flood lights
(and fixtures), as I can't seem to find any listed anywhere. They would be
used for some gentle security in a residential setting, so those defacto,
bright white, LED lights are not really appropriate in such a setting. It
would be used to replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights
that use a ballast, etc), so the maintenance issues would be negligible,
unlike the current one.


You probably need "yellow" instead of "amber" as
a search term. Although when I tried Newark after
trying Home Depot, both colors were listed.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-...9080/300817717

And you really want to see the product in person.

Actual yellow LEDs would be "too pure" of a yellow. You
probably want a light which is a "*******ized white". They
start with a blue LED (for efficiency and energetic photons),
and they use various phosphors to attain other colors. That
would be better than "pure yellow".

This would be an example of hunting down a yellow LED. These
might be 1/3rd the efficiency of blue+phosphor (white) LEDs.

https://canada.newark.com/osram-opto...lm/dp/62AC0719

The hard part of working with items like that, is soldering them.
It's difficult for a hobbyist to control conditions well enough
to deal with them directly. The high power items tend to be
surface-mount. The little LEDs have leads that make hobbyist
usage a lot easier. But then you'd need $250 worth to make
a light bulb (to get it bright enough) :-)

Paul
  #3  
Old October 22nd 18, 01:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul in Houston TX[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

Bill in Co wrote:
I know this is completely OT, but I was just wondering if anyone has ever
been able to find any outdoor, dusk to dawn, amber colored LED flood lights
(and fixtures), as I can't seem to find any listed anywhere. They would be
used for some gentle security in a residential setting, so those defacto,
bright white, LED lights are not really appropriate in such a setting. It
would be used to replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights
that use a ballast, etc), so the maintenance issues would be negligible,
unlike the current one.


You might want to call or email LSI.
We get all of our industrial LED lighting from them.
http://www.lsi-industries.com/

  #4  
Old October 22nd 18, 11:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

In message , Paul
writes:
Bill in Co wrote:

[]
not really appropriate in such a setting. It would be used to
replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights that use

[]
Actual yellow LEDs would be "too pure" of a yellow. You
probably want a light which is a "*******ized white". They
start with a blue LED (for efficiency and energetic photons),
and they use various phosphors to attain other colors. That
would be better than "pure yellow".


If he's replacing sodium vapour lights, those are pretty close to
monochrome! Two Fraunhofer lines very close together in the yellow (with
a weak red one, which may be from the neon they contain to get them
started).

This would be an example of hunting down a yellow LED. These
might be 1/3rd the efficiency of blue+phosphor (white) LEDs.


Are they, actually? I thought the phosphors were used (a) to translate
down the peak emission which is in the UV for those LEDs, (b) to broaden
the peak (i. e. give white); I thought the peak for yellow LEDs was
actually in the yellow already.

Of course it might be that nobody makes high-power yellow ones; the
majority of development recently does seem to have been in the white
area (using phosphors since LED's emissions are intrinsically fairly
narrow-band), and maybe white with a filter may be the only option
available. (He did specifically say bright white would _not_ be
appropriate [though I wonder if not-so-bright white might be].)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) [UK only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...BYobumelL9J54c

Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
), 1998
  #5  
Old October 22nd 18, 04:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Bill in Co wrote:

[]
not really appropriate in such a setting. It would be used to
replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights that use

[]
Actual yellow LEDs would be "too pure" of a yellow. You
probably want a light which is a "*******ized white". They
start with a blue LED (for efficiency and energetic photons),
and they use various phosphors to attain other colors. That
would be better than "pure yellow".


If he's replacing sodium vapour lights, those are pretty close to
monochrome! Two Fraunhofer lines very close together in the yellow (with
a weak red one, which may be from the neon they contain to get them
started).

This would be an example of hunting down a yellow LED. These
might be 1/3rd the efficiency of blue+phosphor (white) LEDs.


Are they, actually? I thought the phosphors were used (a) to translate
down the peak emission which is in the UV for those LEDs, (b) to broaden
the peak (i. e. give white); I thought the peak for yellow LEDs was
actually in the yellow already.

Of course it might be that nobody makes high-power yellow ones; the
majority of development recently does seem to have been in the white
area (using phosphors since LED's emissions are intrinsically fairly
narrow-band), and maybe white with a filter may be the only option
available. (He did specifically say bright white would _not_ be
appropriate [though I wonder if not-so-bright white might be].)
[]


They do make them. I have Lumileds documentation here for the
color ones, such as yellow, red, green. The efficiency of
direct LED output devices varies, as does the sensitivity of
the human eye to the colors in question.

You've probably seen the red/yellow/green LEDs used for panel
indicators. If you use enough of those in an array, it makes
an illuminator. The conversion efficiency improves, the
more that you can eliminate crystal defects from the
structures at the atomic level. Some chemical combinations
just don't pack well.

And the spectral width on a LED, is somewhere around a couple
hundred nanometers. They're not sharp like a laser. (There's a
difference between the half-power rating, and the width of the
skirt as seen on a lab spectrometer.)

The blue LED is nominally blue, with the usual skirt. And then
the phosphor converts some of the energy into other colors.
There are likely multiple phosphors, mixed together. The more
phosphor, the less blue leaks through, but the less efficient
they are overall. And the process has a name, like "phosphor smothering".
That's why Philips made a generation of bulbs with remote
phosphor, the claim being that this was a more efficient
phosphor conversion scheme. (Those are the yellow looking bulbs
I rejected here, where it said on the package specifically
"these are white, not yellow", and the light they gave out
was yellowish in a "projection onto kitchen wall" test.)

But a warm white bulb still wouldn't meet the "bug light"
requirement of the OP.

It's possible blue+phosphor would be a more efficient
emitter than yellow directly, But then it would be
a matter of whether a good phosphor exists for that
process or not.

There are some neat phosphors, and also some ugly characteristics.
Somebody invented a "pink" LED, and whatever process it used,
the color shifts in only a couple of days usage. Making the
color "useless" from a design perspective. If your application
needed a constant pink, you would not get it from the
"prototype" version of those. So what would be happening there,
is likely a chemical reaction (breakdown) fueled by energetic
photons.

And they do make ultraviolet illuminators, which can be
used for applications like polymerizing the liquid in
dental filling plastic. But those LEDs are expensive,
presumably in an attempt to convince people to not
buy them for innocent home experiments. I don't think
those are all that safe.

*******

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode

"The wavelength of the light emitted, and thus its color,
depends on the band gap energy of the materials forming
the p-n junction.

The materials used for the LED have a direct band gap with
energies corresponding to near-infrared, visible, or
near-ultraviolet light.

eff lm/W
(IR 760 λ )
Red 620 λ 645 0.39 72
Red-orange 610 λ 620 0.29 98
(Yellow 570 λ 590)
Green 520 λ 550 0.15 93
Cyan 490 λ 520 0.26 75
Blue 460 λ 490 0.35 37 === can be converted to white
...
(UV "down to 210 nm")
"

The red has nice efficiency, but makes an unpleasant
illuminator. It might be good for your dark room though
(when developing film).

The price of the LEDs has come down, but the ability
to use them has got worse with time. As they're SMT
and a PITA to work with. Even if you buy the large
(1" array or larger), those have a lot of heat output,
and the heatsink costs more than the LED :-) They're
making them with silicon carbide now, to take more heat,
but I'm still not comfortable with cooking them. The
light bulb manufacturers don't mind doing that.

This is the form factor I used here. My kitchen lighting
is two of these. The substrate is fastened to a heatsink
with screws and epoxy. (The epoxy being necessary because
the substrates "slide around" a bit without something
to help the screws.) The light bounces off the ceiling,
because you don't really want to look into these. And this
is subdued lighting, not sufficient for reading a
newspaper. But you can leave them running all day if you
want. They don't use a lot of power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2...,_Lumiled).jpg

That form factor helps with SMT LEDs, as you get solder pads
a hobbyist can use.

The boring part, is making a DC power source (a current source)
if you work with LEDs in home projects. I used an LM317 to
make a current source for my project, which is far from
efficient. Circuits don't get much simpler than this :-)

https://i.stack.imgur.com/qumNL.png

Paul
  #6  
Old October 22nd 18, 07:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Bill in Co wrote:

[]
not really appropriate in such a setting. It would be used to
replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights that use

[]
Actual yellow LEDs would be "too pure" of a yellow. You
probably want a light which is a "*******ized white". They
start with a blue LED (for efficiency and energetic photons),
and they use various phosphors to attain other colors. That
would be better than "pure yellow".

If he's replacing sodium vapour lights, those are pretty close to
monochrome! Two Fraunhofer lines very close together in the yellow
(with a weak red one, which may be from the neon they contain to get
them started).

This would be an example of hunting down a yellow LED. These
might be 1/3rd the efficiency of blue+phosphor (white) LEDs.

Are they, actually? I thought the phosphors were used (a) to
translate down the peak emission which is in the UV for those LEDs,
(b) to broaden the peak (i. e. give white); I thought the peak for
yellow LEDs was actually in the yellow already.
Of course it might be that nobody makes high-power yellow ones; the
majority of development recently does seem to have been in the white
area (using phosphors since LED's emissions are intrinsically fairly
narrow-band), and maybe white with a filter may be the only option
available. (He did specifically say bright white would _not_ be
appropriate [though I wonder if not-so-bright white might be].)
[]


They do make them. I have Lumileds documentation here for the
color ones, such as yellow, red, green. The efficiency of
direct LED output devices varies, as does the sensitivity of
the human eye to the colors in question.


I think it (the human sensitivity) peaks around yellow-green.

You've probably seen the red/yellow/green LEDs used for panel
indicators. If you use enough of those in an array, it makes
an illuminator. The conversion efficiency improves, the


I worked in electronics for a third of a century, though I'll admit I
didn't get much involved with LEDs much beyond the _arrival_ of blue
ones.

more that you can eliminate crystal defects from the
structures at the atomic level. Some chemical combinations
just don't pack well.

And the spectral width on a LED, is somewhere around a couple
hundred nanometers. They're not sharp like a laser. (There's a
difference between the half-power rating, and the width of the
skirt as seen on a lab spectrometer.)


Yes, so Bill's requirement - "gentle security" as he put it - _would_, I
think, be satisfied by "genuine" yellow LEDs, rather than phosphor ones.
(After all, if the residents have been happy with sodium ones ...!)

The blue LED is nominally blue, with the usual skirt. And then
the phosphor converts some of the energy into other colors.
There are likely multiple phosphors, mixed together. The more
phosphor, the less blue leaks through, but the less efficient
they are overall. And the process has a name, like "phosphor smothering".


It was my understanding that when the holy grail of the "white LED" was
originally developed, it used an LED that was very much at the blue/UV
end, with a fair proportion of the skirt beyond the visible spectrum,
and brought back into it by the phosphors (as you say, probably a
mixture, to make the output "white"). Much like fluorescent tubes (which
use a discharge - spark - that's mostly outside the visible; I don't
know what the gas they use is).

That's why Philips made a generation of bulbs with remote
phosphor, the claim being that this was a more efficient


Like the second-generation Sinclair portable TV, which had a side-firing
electron gun deflected into the phosphor and viewed from that side.

phosphor conversion scheme. (Those are the yellow looking bulbs
I rejected here, where it said on the package specifically
"these are white, not yellow", and the light they gave out
was yellowish in a "projection onto kitchen wall" test.)

But a warm white bulb still wouldn't meet the "bug light"
requirement of the OP.


I've re-read his original post - "gentle security"; he doesn't mention
bugs (-:

It's possible blue+phosphor would be a more efficient
emitter than yellow directly, But then it would be
a matter of whether a good phosphor exists for that
process or not.

There are some neat phosphors, and also some ugly characteristics.
Somebody invented a "pink" LED, and whatever process it used,
the color shifts in only a couple of days usage. Making the
color "useless" from a design perspective. If your application


Ah, I wondered what happened to those! So they don't stay pink, do they
not!
[]
And they do make ultraviolet illuminators, which can be
used for applications like polymerizing the liquid in
dental filling plastic. But those LEDs are expensive,
presumably in an attempt to convince people to not
buy them for innocent home experiments. I don't think
those are all that safe.

I wonder if you could make some by cutting the phosphor off some "white"
ones (-:! [Much like, way back in the days of germanium transistors, you
could - so I'm told - make the much more expensive OCP71 phototransistor
by scraping some of the paint off the ordinary OC71 transistor!]
[]
"The wavelength of the light emitted, and thus its color,
depends on the band gap energy of the materials forming
the p-n junction.

The materials used for the LED have a direct band gap with
energies corresponding to near-infrared, visible, or
near-ultraviolet light.

eff lm/W
(IR 760 0 Red 620 0 Red-orange 610 0 (Yellow 570 0 Green 520 0 Cyan 490 0 Blue 460 0 ...
(UV "down to 210 nm")
"

I notice they've omitted the efficiency figure for the yellow (and UV)
ones!

The red has nice efficiency, but makes an unpleasant
illuminator. It might be good for your dark room though
(when developing film).


If anyone still does (-:.

The price of the LEDs has come down, but the ability
to use them has got worse with time. As they're SMT
and a PITA to work with. Even if you buy the large
(1" array or larger), those have a lot of heat output,
and the heatsink costs more than the LED :-) They're
making them with silicon carbide now, to take more heat,
but I'm still not comfortable with cooking them. The
light bulb manufacturers don't mind doing that.


When blue first came out, I understood they used silicon carbide to get
the necessary band-gap, rather than any heat-resistant property (though
I've no doubt that is useful). I remember the first blue ones had a Vf
of getting on for 5 volts, rather than 1.8 for red and about 2.2 for
green/yellow.
[]
The boring part, is making a DC power source (a current source)
if you work with LEDs in home projects. I used an LM317 to
make a current source for my project, which is far from
efficient. Circuits don't get much simpler than this :-)

[]
I agree, not so hot (!) on the efficiency front. I think a lot of LED
assemblies use multiple chips and a voltage source, with a low-value
resistor to limit the current a bit. Such as the plug-in replacements
they sell for car tail lights (for older cars that are designed for
filament bulbs) - these obviously use several LED chips in series.
[Interestingly, they seem only to sell those in "white", whereas you'd
have thought red (brake, tail) or yellow/orange (indicator) would suit
better; I guess efficiency's not too much of a concern there, and they
just rely on the coloured housing as they did anyway with the filament
bulb. Thus getting economies of scale, rather than having to stock all
the colours.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...n=gHafDVBYobum
elL9J54c

"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen
  #7  
Old October 23rd 18, 03:00 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default OT - outdoor amber LED flood lights?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Bill in Co wrote:
[]
not really appropriate in such a setting. It would be used to
replace the current ionized gas (sodium vapor) amber lights that use
[]
Actual yellow LEDs would be "too pure" of a yellow. You
probably want a light which is a "*******ized white". They
start with a blue LED (for efficiency and energetic photons),
and they use various phosphors to attain other colors. That
would be better than "pure yellow".
If he's replacing sodium vapour lights, those are pretty close to
monochrome! Two Fraunhofer lines very close together in the yellow
(with a weak red one, which may be from the neon they contain to get
them started).

This would be an example of hunting down a yellow LED. These
might be 1/3rd the efficiency of blue+phosphor (white) LEDs.
Are they, actually? I thought the phosphors were used (a) to
translate down the peak emission which is in the UV for those LEDs,
(b) to broaden the peak (i. e. give white); I thought the peak for
yellow LEDs was actually in the yellow already.
Of course it might be that nobody makes high-power yellow ones; the
majority of development recently does seem to have been in the white
area (using phosphors since LED's emissions are intrinsically fairly
narrow-band), and maybe white with a filter may be the only option
available. (He did specifically say bright white would _not_ be
appropriate [though I wonder if not-so-bright white might be].)
[]


They do make them. I have Lumileds documentation here for the
color ones, such as yellow, red, green. The efficiency of
direct LED output devices varies, as does the sensitivity of
the human eye to the colors in question.


I think it (the human sensitivity) peaks around yellow-green.

You've probably seen the red/yellow/green LEDs used for panel
indicators. If you use enough of those in an array, it makes
an illuminator. The conversion efficiency improves, the


I worked in electronics for a third of a century, though I'll admit I
didn't get much involved with LEDs much beyond the _arrival_ of blue
ones.

more that you can eliminate crystal defects from the
structures at the atomic level. Some chemical combinations
just don't pack well.

And the spectral width on a LED, is somewhere around a couple
hundred nanometers. They're not sharp like a laser. (There's a
difference between the half-power rating, and the width of the
skirt as seen on a lab spectrometer.)


Yes, so Bill's requirement - "gentle security" as he put it - _would_, I
think, be satisfied by "genuine" yellow LEDs, rather than phosphor ones.
(After all, if the residents have been happy with sodium ones ...!)

The blue LED is nominally blue, with the usual skirt. And then
the phosphor converts some of the energy into other colors.
There are likely multiple phosphors, mixed together. The more
phosphor, the less blue leaks through, but the less efficient
they are overall. And the process has a name, like "phosphor smothering".


It was my understanding that when the holy grail of the "white LED" was
originally developed, it used an LED that was very much at the blue/UV
end, with a fair proportion of the skirt beyond the visible spectrum,
and brought back into it by the phosphors (as you say, probably a
mixture, to make the output "white"). Much like fluorescent tubes (which
use a discharge - spark - that's mostly outside the visible; I don't
know what the gas they use is).

That's why Philips made a generation of bulbs with remote
phosphor, the claim being that this was a more efficient


Like the second-generation Sinclair portable TV, which had a side-firing
electron gun deflected into the phosphor and viewed from that side.

phosphor conversion scheme. (Those are the yellow looking bulbs
I rejected here, where it said on the package specifically
"these are white, not yellow", and the light they gave out
was yellowish in a "projection onto kitchen wall" test.)

But a warm white bulb still wouldn't meet the "bug light"
requirement of the OP.


I've re-read his original post - "gentle security"; he doesn't mention
bugs (-:

It's possible blue+phosphor would be a more efficient
emitter than yellow directly, But then it would be
a matter of whether a good phosphor exists for that
process or not.

There are some neat phosphors, and also some ugly characteristics.
Somebody invented a "pink" LED, and whatever process it used,
the color shifts in only a couple of days usage. Making the
color "useless" from a design perspective. If your application


Ah, I wondered what happened to those! So they don't stay pink, do they
not!
[]
And they do make ultraviolet illuminators, which can be
used for applications like polymerizing the liquid in
dental filling plastic. But those LEDs are expensive,
presumably in an attempt to convince people to not
buy them for innocent home experiments. I don't think
those are all that safe.

I wonder if you could make some by cutting the phosphor off some "white"
ones (-:! [Much like, way back in the days of germanium transistors, you
could - so I'm told - make the much more expensive OCP71 phototransistor
by scraping some of the paint off the ordinary OC71 transistor!]
[]
"The wavelength of the light emitted, and thus its color,
depends on the band gap energy of the materials forming
the p-n junction.

The materials used for the LED have a direct band gap with
energies corresponding to near-infrared, visible, or
near-ultraviolet light.

eff lm/W
(IR 760 0 Red 620 0 Red-orange 610 0
(Yellow 570 0 Green 520 0 Cyan 490

0 Blue 460 0 ... (UV "down to 210 nm") "

I notice they've omitted the efficiency figure for the yellow (and UV)
ones!

The red has nice efficiency, but makes an unpleasant
illuminator. It might be good for your dark room though
(when developing film).


If anyone still does (-:.

The price of the LEDs has come down, but the ability
to use them has got worse with time. As they're SMT
and a PITA to work with. Even if you buy the large
(1" array or larger), those have a lot of heat output,
and the heatsink costs more than the LED :-) They're
making them with silicon carbide now, to take more heat,
but I'm still not comfortable with cooking them. The
light bulb manufacturers don't mind doing that.


When blue first came out, I understood they used silicon carbide to get
the necessary band-gap, rather than any heat-resistant property (though
I've no doubt that is useful). I remember the first blue ones had a Vf
of getting on for 5 volts, rather than 1.8 for red and about 2.2 for
green/yellow.
[]
The boring part, is making a DC power source (a current source)
if you work with LEDs in home projects. I used an LM317 to
make a current source for my project, which is far from
efficient. Circuits don't get much simpler than this :-)

[]
I agree, not so hot (!) on the efficiency front. I think a lot of LED
assemblies use multiple chips and a voltage source, with a low-value
resistor to limit the current a bit. Such as the plug-in replacements
they sell for car tail lights (for older cars that are designed for
filament bulbs) - these obviously use several LED chips in series.
[Interestingly, they seem only to sell those in "white", whereas you'd
have thought red (brake, tail) or yellow/orange (indicator) would suit
better; I guess efficiency's not too much of a concern there, and they
just rely on the coloured housing as they did anyway with the filament
bulb. Thus getting economies of scale, rather than having to stock all
the colours.]


To clarify any ambiguities, this item would be used to replace an existing
HID high pressure sodium light assembly that gives off a pleasing amber
light, so that any bedrooms exposed to such see just that, and NOT that
obnoxious WHITE light coming out of these LED light assemblies. No, I
don't think I mentioned bug lights, or if I did, it would have been in the
context of getting that kind of toned down color, that's all.

I could add a comment about some of the LED automobile headlights these days
too, but I'll refrain here, as it's pretty obvious too - for the same
reasons. But I do understand why it's being done (in both cases), since
the LED's have a really great lifetime, and need much less servicing. But
it sure sucks to see it. But for high security purposes I definitely think
it fits the bill - but that's it.

The problem seems to be being able to develop a better and practical LED
assembly with these nice, toned down, amber colors, just like those HID
sodium vapor ones put out, at least for these specific situations. Time
will tell if we ever get there, or if there is enough demand for such.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.